vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Technically, the answer is no, you can't put more money in to that ISA in that tax year once you've transferred it (unless you've transferred it to a Stocks and Shares ISA). FAQs 7 and 8 from http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/isa/faqs.htm cover these cases: Q. I have transferred current year payments to my cash ISA to a stocks and shares ISA, can I make any further payments to a cash ISA in this tax year? A. Yes - provided you haven't already used up your annual ISA investment allowance (£11,520 in the tax year 2013-14). When you transfer current year payments to your cash ISA to a stocks and shares ISA it is as if that cash ISA had never existed. Any money you saved up to the date of transfer will be treated as if you had invested that money directly in the stocks and shares ISA. For example, if you had put £2,000 in a cash ISA and then transferred it to a stocks and shares ISA you would be able to make further payments totalling £9,520 in that tax year. You could either put all of the £9,520 in the stocks and shares ISA or you could put up to £5,760 in a cash ISA (with the same or a different ISA manager) and the remainder of the £9,520 in the stocks and shares ISA. Q. How many ISAs can I have? A. There are limits on the number of ISA accounts you can subscribe to each tax year. You can only put money into one cash ISA and one stocks and shares ISA. But in different years, you could choose to save with different managers. There are no limits on the number of different ISAs you can hold over time. However, in practice, if you transfer mid-year from Provider A to Provider B, Provider B has no way of telling whether you have already put money in to the ISA with Provider A that year or not, so you will be able to put more money in.
&gt; hard to avoid.  Unless, you know, you create a foreign corporation to do all your trading. Its not 'your' money to be taxed until someone can prove ownership. I honestly don't see how this is any different than the use of trusts to lower tax obligations in the middle ages.
"In answer to the ""how I can perform withdrawal with the lower rate (having GBP)?"" part of your question, as Joe stated you need to use another bank or currency exchange company to convert the GBP to PLN.  Most of the UK banks charge similar amounts, and it's usually not possible to transfer the GBP to a foreign bank unless you have a GBP account with them. Some currency exchange firms are Transferwise, FairFX, CaxtonFX, a web search will show a fuller range. You could also use Paypal to do the transfer (if you have a paypal account) by transferring the GBP from Barclays to your paypal account and then from there to your PLN account."
It's tough to avoid the discussion of taxes. Matthew's answer was excellent but of course, tax was part of the discussion.  In an article I wrote a while back, The 15% solution, I described how one can optimize taxes paid by using Roth (401 or IRA) while at a marginal 15%, and carefully transition to pretax to avoid the 25% bracket. It's possible to effectively save money from a 25% rate and withdraw it at 0%. (Zero is what one pays for the first $20K of a couple's income, this is the combined standard deduction and personal exemptions.) It would take $500K at retirement to produce the $20,000 withdrawal at a 4% rate. Keep in mind, this is a moving target as the numbers edge up each year.  With no match, I'd consider the Roth IRA. But I also agree, paying higher interest debt first is a wise priority.
Everbank just charges a 1% currency conversion fee for foreign ATM transactions. Unfortunately they don't seem to document this on their web site, but a call to customer services should confirm (A family member confirmed with them in the past and I also have personal experience while traveling). It appears About.com also reviewed a few last spring. While many places do only take cash, for larger transactions (such as lodging) I'd recommend considering carrying one of the credit cards that don't pass through the network charge for a net 0% (such as Capital One mentioned in another answer).
In the US, mortgage payments are not deductible. What is deductible is the mortgage interest (to a limit). That, as well, is not deductible unconditionally, but rather as part of your itemized deductions on Schedule A of your yearly tax return. So if you're married and have a standard deduction of $12600 a year, live in a state with no state income tax, and your property tax and the mortgage interest are less than your standard deduction - you will not be getting any tax benefit whatsoever. That is, in fact, the case for many, if not majority, of the US mortgage payers. So in order to get a proper estimate, you need to take into account all the aspects of your tax calculations, which are by nature quite personal, and simulate the changes with the mortgage interest deduction. Most tax preparation software will allow you creating multiple files, so you can run the numbers for different scenarios.
Well, the problem with putting a group of people in charge of something so substantial is that man is corruptible.  The individuals in charge will change over time and eventually corrupt people will be in charge.  It's inevitable.  &gt; If you were in charge, what action would you take?  If I were in charge of the Fed or if I were in charge of designing a brand new monetary system?  If I were in charge of the Fed, I would immediately stop the creation of this funny money, make all of the Fed's account books, publications, meeting minutes and all other info public information.  I would invite a full audit of the entire organization.  I would then hold the people accountable for any fraud that turns up.  Then I would simply abolish the organization.  I believe local banks can better set lending rates just as local store owners can set better prices than a single federal organization.  Interest rates would reflect actual demand for loans, not reflect the secret personal agenda of some arrogant, elitist bureaucrat.  If I were designing a new monetary system, I would combine the obvious benefits of a gold/silver standard with the openness and decentralized nature of a currency like bitcoin.  I would create a published and predictable increase to the money supply that could not be changed, and would grow just enough to avoid constant deflation as economies expanded.  Most importantly, I would advocate and encourage the creation of alternate currencies to allow honest competition.
If your mortgage interest is tax-deductible, it's generally a bad idea to pay down the principal on the mortgage because you'd be losing the tax deduction. You could instead invest it in a tax-free municipal bond fund, especially if you're in a high tax bracket (including state and local marginal tax rates). For example, if you have a 5% rate mortgage on your home, you could invest in a 3.5% municipal bond and still come out ahead when you apply the tax deduction to your income at a 44% (33% federal + 7% state + 4% city in NYC) marginal tax rate.
In the end, I filled out the form with a foreign TIN (my UK National Insurance Number) on line 6, as well as a short sentence detailing my claim for 0% tax withholding according to the relevant section of the UK-US tax treaty. It looks like this was good enough; the prize money arrived in my account a few days ago, and it seems that no tax was withheld!
I can't immediately think of a reason to keep your paycheck and spending account separate, unless it be because you want to keep your savings in a money market or savings account and you deposit your paycheck into a checking account. However, I do have one reason from my experience to keep the bulk of your savings away from accounts that you transfer stuff out of.  I used to keep all my cash savings in an account from which I transferred money into my brokerage account (my paycheck was also deposited there).  A couple of years back a state that I haven't lived in since I was a child took $40,000 out of my account.  The broker mistakenly told the state I lived there and the state made some mistakes about how much tax I would owe.  Without either one telling me, the state helped themselves to my checking account to cover the bill.  When I called, both acknowledged that they were wrong, but it still took a long time (many months) and lots of letters and threats (I was close to paying a lawyer) before they returned my money.  It was worse because this was my savings for a down payment on a home and having it taken and not returned affected my ability to buy the house I wanted. If I hadn't had my money in that account, they would have tried to garnish my wages, and would have immediately stopped their attempt once they found out they were in the wrong. Now I keep cash savings in an account that I never pay taxes out of and do not use to transfer money directly to any broker or anyone who might give my account number to an inept government.
That's actually a really good idea... I might start getting like a hundred every payday or something. A friend of mine said that you can use cash machines that just use the current exchange rate with seemingly no commission... seems a bit too good to be true if you ask me
Contributions are post-tax, so there's no direct tax benefit to choosing a year. I just made a 2010 contribution today, and the institution's form explicitly asks me if I want it on 2010 or 2011.  The primary advantage of backdating like this is being able to contribute 5k more over your lifetime than otherwise possible, under the timing constraints. While there may be a year in the future which you don't contribute the max, contributing now lets you build up earnings tax free. For '10 vs '11, you're probably holding cash so it's not a big deal, but over five years is a long time to hold cash or invest with tax penalty.
GiveDirectly works substantially better than you'd imagine, and is money well spent in terms of unlimited problems and limited resources. But it probably isn't as close to perfect as reports like this make it seem.  As a general idea, financial efficiency is super important but you still need to analyze that the approach the organization takes is effective. Part of the downside of GiveDirectly is based on the fact that your average joe won't always spend money in the perfect manner.   This article is a pretty good critique and links to a more formal study -  https://ssir.org/articles/entry/givedirectly_not_so_fast  Think it's a great organization but the flowery praise may be a bit too optimistic. I sure as shit don't know.   Depends on the mission but quantifying the efficacy of charities and benefit per dollar spent is very difficult. The most economically efficient charity ever is probably a smaller organization that approaches a very concrete simple problem, and has minimal overhead. Best guess would be a food bank run by a convent/monastery.
Currently I do most of my computer-based organization on a Mac with piece of software by CircusPonies.com called NoteBook. There's a command to insert the time, date, or both, and I just use that when I have a need to record elapsed time. I have even run across (and I forget the name) a piece of software for tracking time on Windows, which had multiple timers which you could set so either they were allowed to run concurrently (lawyers), or only one would run at a time. Anyway… Personally I think freeware is fun, but be careful. It's still the wild frickin west out there. If you don't trust the site you're downloading from, scan it with your anti-virus software before you install it, create a Restore Point, do a full, offsite backup of all your hard drives, unplug your computer from the Internet, send your wife to her mother's, lock the kids in the basement, cross your fingers, and phone the local bishop for a dispensation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensation_(Catholic_Church))."
When you send money with Western Union, it is essentially a cash transaction.  You supply Western Union with the name of the recipient and a location.  Your recipient then shows up at a Western Union office, shows some identification, and receives cash.  At this point, the transaction is over.  It is impossible to retract it at this point, because Western Union has already handed out cash, and they have no way of contacting the recipient any longer. This is the reason why you might want to legitimately use Western Union.  It is an instant way to send cash to anyone anywhere in the world.  Let's say that your best friend is stuck in a foreign land and desperately needs money.  You can give him cash just as fast as each of you can get to a Western Union office, and you don't even need a local bank account to do so. Unfortunately, however, the nature of the service also makes it useful for scammers.  You should never use this service to pay for something from someone you don't know, because there are absolutely no safeguards. As mentioned by user662852 in the comments, you can indeed cancel a Western Union money transfer if you do so before the money is picked up by the recipient.  But after they pick it up, the cash is gone.
You have to balance several concerns here. The primary problem is that if you go to the effort of saving your money you want to also be sure that your savings will not lose too much of its value to inflation. Ukraine had a terrible inflation spike in 2015 for obvious reasons. Even as inflation has settled down in 2016, it is stabilizing around 12% which is very high  Exchange rates are your next concern. If you lose a large percentage of the value of your money just in the process of exchanging it, that also eats away at the value of your money. If you accept the US Federal Reserve target of 2% inflation, then you should only exchange money that you will hold long enough that both exchange fees will outweigh the 10% inflation advantage. Even in cases where you have placed your money in a foreign currency, there's a chance that your government could freeze accounts denominated in foreign currencies, so there's always the political risk that you have to factor in. For that reason keeping foreign currency in cash also has some appeal because it cannot be confiscated as easily. You could still certainly be robbed, so keeping all of your savings in cash isn't a great solution either. All in all, you are diversifying your savings if you use the strategy of balancing all three methods. Splitting it evenly to 5% for each method isn't the most important. I would suggest taking advantage of good exchange rates (as they appear) to time when you buy foreign currency.
Am I correct in understanding that a Scrip Dividend involves the issue of new shares instead of the purchase of existing shares? Yes. Instead of paying a cash dividend to shareholders, the company grants existing shareholders new shares at a previously determined price. This allows shareholders who join the program to obtain new shares without incurring transaction costs that would normally occur if they purchased these shares in the market. Does this mean that if I don't join this program, my existing shares will be diluted every time a Scrip Dividend is paid? Yes, because the number of shares has increased, so the relative percentage of shares in the company you hold will decrease if you opt-out of the program. The price of the existing shares will adjust so that the value of the company is essentially unchanged (similar to a stock split), but the number of outstanding shares has increased, so the relative weight of your shares declines if you opt out of the program.  What is the benefit to the company of issuing Scrip Dividends? Companies may do this to conserve their cash reserves. Also, by issuing a scrip dividend, corporations could avoid the Advanced Corporation Tax (ACT) that they would normally pre-pay on their distributions. Since the abolition of the ACT in 1999, preserving cash reserves is the primary reason for a company to issue scrip dividends, as far as I know. Whether or not scrip dividends are actually a beneficial strategy for a company is debatable (this looks like a neat study, even though I've only skimmed it).  The issue may be beneficial to you, however, because you might receive a tax benefit. You can sell the scrip dividend in the market; the capital gain from this sale may fall below the annual tax-free allowance for capital gains, in which case you don't pay any capital gains tax on that amount. For a cash dividend, however, there isn't a minimum taxable amount, so you would owe dividend tax on the entire dividend (and may therefore pay more taxes on a cash dividend).
"Logic fail. The qty of shares is irrelevant. What matters is the value, which is, of course, quite high -- and, what's more, the P/E ratio, which is extremely favorable. Having worked in operations at Apple for 7 years, I can tell you that the company is very lean and efficient. 25% matching is extremely generous. 25% contribution rates are standard in corporate jobs (contribution rates are what maximum percentage of your pre-tax income you can opt to set aside into a 401K; this is different than matching). It absolutely is not bare bones to be given 25% matching. Although I no longer work at Apple, I still have my 401K, and the administration of it is good, as is the choice of funds. Back to the matching... It's free money. For every $1 you put in your 401K (pretax, btw), Apple puts in a quarter. Having worked in other corporations over my career, I can tell you that this level of matching is pretty much as good as it gets. For a good part of the time I worked there I made around $30K (not in Retail, but in Operations, as mentioned before). I maxed out the Employee Stock Purchase Program contribution and mostly maxed out my 401K contribution. Now, 12 years later, my stock appreciated beyond my wildest expectations. I have made well over six figures on it over the years. If I never sold any, it would be worth over $500,000 by now. All that from 10% contributions on a salary that ranged from about $26K when I started out to about $46K when I left 7 years later. My 401K holdings are worth about $60K, I think, invested extremely conservatively. I have had it in money market funds since right before the 2008/2009 crash, which I anticipated. So the investment benefits at Apple served me extremely well. My stock appreciation paid for my car, and it will soon cover the down payment on a house. I was essentially able to ""retire"" to be a stay-at-home-mom when my son was born, thanks to the safety net I have from my Apple stock.
As others have explained defined contribution is when you (or your employer) contributes a specified amount and you reap all the investment returns. Defined benefit is when your employer promises to pay you a specified amount (benefit) and is responsible for making the necessary investments to provide for it. Is one better than the other? We can argue this either way. Defined benefit would seem to be more predictable and assured. The problem being of course that it is entirely reliant upon the employer to have saved enough money to pay that amount. If the employer fails in that responsibility, then the only fallback is government guarantees. And of course the government has limitations on what it can guarantee. For example, from Wikipedia: The maximum pension benefit guaranteed by PBGC is set by law and adjusted yearly. For plans that end in 2016, workers who retire at age 65 can receive up to $5,011.36 per month (or $60,136 per year) under PBGC's insurance program for single-employer plans. Benefit payments starting at ages other than 65 are adjusted actuarially, which means the maximum guaranteed benefit is lower for those who retire early or when there is a benefit for a survivor, and higher for those who retire after age 65. Additionally, the PBGC will not fully guarantee benefit improvements that were adopted within the five-year period prior to a plan's termination or benefits that are not payable over a retiree's lifetime. Other limitations also apply to supplemental benefits in excess of normal retirement benefits, benefit increases within the last five years before a plan's termination, and benefits earned after a plan sponsor's bankruptcy. By contrast, people tend to control their own defined contribution accounts. So they control how much gets invested and where. Defined contribution accounts are always 100% funded. Defined benefit pension plans are often underfunded. They expect the employer to step forward and subsidize them when they run short. This allows the defined benefits to both be cheaper during the employment period and more generous in retirement. But it also means that employers have to subsidize the plans later, when they no longer get a benefit from the relationship with the employee.
"Your confusion is that that answerer is not comparing a $5500 Roth IRA contribution to a $5500 Traditional IRA contribution. Rather, they were comparing a $3600 Roth IRA contribution to a $5000 Traditional IRA contribution. It is fairer to do such a comparison because (assuming that this person's marginal tax rate is 28%) both of them start with the same amount of pre-tax money ($5000 of pre-tax money is equivalent to $3600 of post-tax money in 28% tax bracket). As a result, both a $5000 Traditional IRA contribution and a $3600 Roth IRA contribution will leave you with the same amount of cash in your bank account at the end (after taxes are filed). That's why it's a fair comparison. And when you do such a comparison, it will mathematically indeed always turn out to the same result for Traditional and Roth if the contribution and withdrawal are at the same tax rate. On the other hand, if you were to compare a $5000 Roth IRA contribution to a $5000 Traditional IRA contribution, even though it's the same nominal dollar figure, you would be comparing apples and oranges because in one case it's a post-tax dollar amount and in the other case a pre-tax dollar amount. The Roth IRA contribution actually leaves you with less in your bank account at the end (after taxes are filed) than the same nominal dollar amount of Traditional IRA contribution. So you are comparing an (effectively) ""larger"" Roth IRA contribution to a ""smaller"" Traditional IRA contribution. Of course the ""larger"" contribution gets more tax advantages over time, and so the result looks better. Note that since Traditional IRA contribution and Roth IRA contributions share the same nominal dollar amount annual limit, but we know that $1 of Roth IRA contributions is effectively larger than $1 of Traditional IRA contributions, that means that Roth IRA contributions has an effectively ""higher"" annual limit than Traditional IRA contributions. For example, a $5500 Traditional IRA contribution is equivalent to a $3960 Roth IRA contribution for someone in the 28% bracket; whereas a $5500 Roth IRA contribution would be equivalent to a $7638.89 Traditional IRA contribution, which you can't do. So it's not possible to do a fair comparison when you go near the limit.
It is so easy to get money in the developed world. Why anyone would want to borrow money from a P2P lending site if a traditional bank/credit union is so readily available on similar terms? Something like Kiva makes more sense to me, since getting money is a much more difficult proposition in the developing world. I'd see it as more as a charitable contribution than a money-making scheme.