vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
It is perfectly legitimate to adjust your 1099-B income by broker's fees.  Publication 17 (p 116) specifically instructs taxpayers to adjust their Schedule D reporting by broker's fees: Form 1099-B transactions.   If you sold property, such as stocks, bonds, or certain commodities, through a broker, you should receive Form 1099-B or substitute statement from the broker. Use the Form 1099-B or the substitute statement to complete Form 8949. If you sold a covered security in 2013, your broker should send you a Form 1099-B (or substitute statement) that shows your basis. This will help you complete Form 8949. Generally, a covered security is a security you acquired after 2010. Report the gross proceeds shown in box 2a of Form 1099-B as the sales price in column (d) of either Part I or Part II of Form 8949, whichever applies. However, if the broker advises you, in box 2a of Form 1099-B, that gross proceeds (sales price) less commissions and option premiums were reported to the IRS, enter that net sales price in column (d) of either Part I or Part II of Form 8949, whichever applies. Include in column (g) any expense of sale, such as broker's fees, commissions, state and local transfer taxes, and option premiums, unless you reported the net sales price in column (d). If you include an expense of sale in column (g), enter “E” in column (f). You can rely on your own records and judgment, if you feel comfortable doing so.  Brokers often make incomplete tax reporting.  This may have been simpler from their perspective if the broker fees were variable, or integrated, or unknown for a number of clients party to a transaction.  If a taxpayer has documentation of the expenses that justify an adjustment, then it's perfectly appropriate to include that in the calculations. It is not necessary to report the discrepancy, and it may increase scrutiny to include a written addendum.  The Schedule D, Form 8949, and Form 1099-B will probably together adequately explain the source of the deduction.
I have been charting the CPI reported inflation rate vs . the yeald on the 10-year T-note. Usually, the two like to keep pace with each other. Sometimes the T-note is a bit higher than the inflation rate, sometimes the inflation rate is a bit higher than the T-note yeald. One does not appear to follow the other, but (until recently) the two do not diverge from each other by much.  But all that changed recently and I am without an explanation as to why. Inflation dropped to zero (or a bit negative) yet the yeald on the 10-year T-note seemed to seek 2%.  Edit: If you give this response a downvote then please be kind enough to explain why in a comment.  Edit-2: CPI and 10-year T-note are what I have tracked, and continue to track. If you do not like my answer then provide a better one, yourself.
&gt; E.U. and the US produces some of the worlds best produce in terms of quality and quantity. Russia has no problem feeding their population. If they're cool with eating nothing but wheat and corn.    From you saying this I assume you are in the US...  Having traveled all over the US and Russia I can tell you.  Ether the US is exporting all its best food items and keeping lower quality for itself, or Russia already has access to better produce than the US has to offer.
I think it might come down to the contract itself. In many states in the US an employer cannot block you from practicing your trade to make a living. In many jurisdictions contract clauses that are designed to prevent you from working in your trade area are generally void and unenforceable however in cases like this only a trip in front of a judge will fix it.   What I find interesting about this, is that depending on the details, Sony might have a hard time finding another spokesman in the future. I would imagine most actors would steer clear of that spot in the future if this is how Sony is going to react when they try to get new work.
"Honestly, last night was the worst I've seen in terms of spam being submitted. Normally, the filter gets it. I've removed the majority of those articles reported as ""spam.""  As for the political tones of the submissions, I think we do a pretty good job in terms of keeping the article headlines neutral and to a certain extent, the content."
Which is unions. But there is such hatred for unions that America has fallen to 7% unionization in the private sector. If things get much worse I sure hope there is a re-mobilization of the labour movement in the US. I don't know how the middle class with survive without them.
I disagree with his point about taking too long to tighten. With rates near zero and asset purchasing programs in place, if there were another crisis what tools does the FRB have? Establishing a broad clear path forward is the best course of action so that confidence is restored in the marketplace. Unfortunately things have moved very far very fast and it has increased inequality. If we tightened sooner and a crisis were to occur the FRB (and the US by proxy) would have been hamstrung for a decades; it took us 1 decade on the current path.
If you need a new roof because your house is full of buckets that fill up every rain :) then that's most likely the item at the top of the list. If you need a new roof because you don't like the color, I'd do something else with it. If you are in the US and the 'education loan' has the same caveats attached as your average student loan, I would eye that one with intent if the roof can soldier on for a few years as is. The simple reason for this is that a student loan would be the one debt that you list that you can never get rid off unless you actually pay it off, no matter what happens (IOW student loans aren't bankruptable). Disregard this if the caveats in the first sentence don't apply...
This is the gist of what a lot of people think, and generally it's true. However the main issue is that what the government does will be the determining factor in what our money is worth. If the Federal reserve manages to devalue our money substantially enough, I don't think the US populace will stand for it.
"In the US, you'd run the risk of being accused of fraud if this weren't set up properly.  It would only be proper if your wife could show that she were involved, acting as your agent, bookkeeper, etc. Even so, to suggest that your time is billed at one rate but you are only paid a tiny fraction of that is still a high risk alert.  I believe the expression ""if it quacks like a duck..."" is pretty universal. If not, I'll edit in a clarification.  note -I know OP is in UK, but I imagine tax collection is pretty similar in this regard."
Have you shopped around?  I would agree that the fees seem high.   The first question I would ask if if the .75% management fee is per year or per month?  If it is per month, you will almost certainly lose money each year.   A quick search shows that Fidelity will allow one to transfer their pensions into a self directed account.  Here in the US, where we have 401Ks, it is almost always better to transfer them into something self directed once you leave an employer.  Fidelity makes it really easy, and I always recommend them.  (No affiliation.) Here in the US they actually pay you for you transferring money into your account.  This can come in the form of free stock trades or money added to your account. I would encourage you to give them or their competitors a look in order to make an informed decision.  Often times, a person with lowish balances, can't really afford to pay those high management fees.  You might need in the 10s of millions before something like that makes sense.
When I go to Niagara Falls, for example, the towers on both sides pick up my phone. I'll be standing fully within Canada and get a 'welcome to the US' text, and vice versa. This is known to happen and usually isn't a big deal. The article talks about roaming in a neighboring country, so it doesn't really clarify if it's simply near border connection as I've described, or if the phone is supposed to have connected further in the country.
"Well hindsight tells us now that by and large, doing 100% borrowing was not the best policy we could have taken.  It gets nitpicky, but in the US the traditional 20% is the answer I presently feel comfortable with. It could be a reactionary judgement I am making to the current mess (in which I have formed the opinion that all parties are responsible) and arm-chair quarterbacking ""if we had only stuck with the 20% rule, we wouldn't be here right now. The truth is probably much more gray than that, but like all things personal finance it is really up to you.  If the law allows 100% financing ask yourself if it really makes sense that a bank would just loan you hundreds of thousands of dollars to live somewhere."
Aldi and Lidl have grown in the UK at an alarming rate to the point where they've been able to take significant market share away from the supermarket oligopoly that previously existed.  I wonder if they can pull the same miracle in the US market.
&gt; that require little to no skills but will teach them and pay them well in the meantime  Curious, do jobs like this exist?   Just asking as I’m trying to think of what industries might be able to do this.
I agree with you. B&amp;M is not going anywhere. People like to see what they are buying. Thats why i never buy shirts online because they might be a bad quality. But to add to the Best Buy roast. When i went to buy my 3ds it took 20 minutes to get help i was planning on leaving.  When amazon announced the WF deal many, if not all, retailer's hearts skipped a beat.  When i got the bloomberg notification i had to read it 2-3 times to make sure i read it right.
For whatever it's worth, when I went to the meeting a couple of years ago, the question and answer segment is mostly students asking how to pick a stock or what book they should read.  I'm sure someone else will ask but it would be interesting to hear their take on the Syrian refugee situation in Europe and how it may impact the EU in general.  Or how he/they think the drought in the south western region of the US will impact the national economy, if at all.  Like Keshlam says, if YOU don't care about the answer there's really no point to asking the question. The most important thing you can do is listen to what he and Munger have to say.  The way they think is interesting and they have great rapport with eachother.  It's a great experience and unfortunately I wasn't able to make my schedule work to attend this year.  It's almost comical how many cans of Coke Warren will knock out through the day.   Another fun thing to do is take the shuttle to the airstrip to check out the NetJets.  I wish I had the interest and wherewithal to go when I was 16...
Wow. Just goes to show lack of understanding or ignorance.  No. America is not a country, but continents.   No US is not protectionist. It is more global then ever. If you thought we are now protectionist, you were fooled by Trump.   &gt;Also I notice that in you trying to cite that graph of the top countries with Tariffs, China and the United States are still in the top 5. So what are you objecting to, that I did not include Brazil and India in my original list? It seems like Russia is the only one not on that graph. If you extended this to all countries Canada would still be in the top 10. You really fucked yourself over here.  Lol. What kind of cognitive dissonance is it? Are you joking you saying 1 % tarrif is protectionism?   I cant tell if it is your lack of understanding, denial, getting fooled or what.   &gt;VENEZUELA IS NOT ON THAT LIST YOU LINKED.  Where did I say said it was?   Edit. Nice changing the topics btw. LOL Russia. LOL. You must be one of those putin supporter
"Can the companies from USA give job to me (I am from New Zealand)? Job as being employee - may be tricky. This depends on the labor laws in New Zealand, but most likely will trigger ""nexus"" clause and will force the employer to register in the country, which most won't want to do. Instead you can be hired as a contractor (i.e.: being self-employed, from NZ legal perspective). If so, what are the legal documents i have to provide to the USA for any taxes? If you're employed as a contractor, you'll need to provide form W8-BEN to your US employer on which you'll have to certify your tax status. Unless you're a US citizen/green card holder, you're probably a non-US person for tax purposes, and as such will not be paying any tax in the US as long as you work in New Zealand. If you travel to the US for work, things may become tricky, and tax treaties may be needed. Will I have to pay tax to New Zealand Government? Most likely, as a self-employed. Check how this works locally. As for recommendations, since these are highly subjective opinions that may change over time, they're considered off-topic here. Check on Yelp, Google, or any local NZ professional review site."
That's not the same as ""cancelled"", but you are out of the trade, whether at profit or loss. Furthermore, the option writer (i.e. the seller who ""sold to open"" a position, in writing the call in the first place) is also not permitted to cancel the option he wrote. However, the option writer is permitted to close out the original short position by simply buying back a matching call option on the market. Again, this would occur at either profit or loss based on market prices at the time. This second kind of buy order – i.e. made by someone who initially wrote a call option – is called a ""buy to close"", meaning the purchase of an offsetting position. (The other kind of buy is the ""buy to open"".) Then, consider: Since an option buyer is free to re-sell the option purchased, and since an option writer (who ""sold to open"" the new contract) is also free to buy back an offsetting option, a process known as clearing is required to match remaining buyers exercising the call options held with the remaining option writers having open short positions for the contract. For CBOE options, this clearing is performed by the Options Clearing Corporation. Here's how it works (see here): What is the OCC? The Options Clearing Corporation is the sole issuer of all securities options listed at the CBOE, four other U.S. stock exchanges and the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (NASD), and is the entity through which all CBOE option transactions are ultimately cleared. As the issuer of all options, OCC essentially takes the opposite side of every option traded. Because OCC basically becomes the buyer for every seller and the seller for every buyer, it allows options traders to buy and sell in a secondary market without having to find the original opposite party. [...]   [emphasis above is mine] When a call option writer must deliver shares to a call option buyer exercising a call, it's called assignment. (I have been assigned before, and it isn't pleasant to see a position called away that otherwise would have been very profitable if the call weren't written in the first place!)
"The Facebook ad sales aren't ""concrete"" enough for you?  Look dummy, we know for a fact that Russia interfered with the election.  No serious person disputes that.  What we don't know is how far their efforts went, but that's what we should expect because until he's done building his case, Mueller isn't going to reveal what he knows.  At this point, while it's still somewhat reasonable to be skeptical about the extent of Russian interference, denying that it happened at all just makes you look stupid or insane."
Remember that prices refer to discrete events in the market - trades - it is easily possible that the highest price for a trade in the next period is lower than the highest price in the current one as someone in the current period may be willing to pay more in this period than anyone in the next. The ending price of a period is also determined this way; it is the last price that someone was willing to pay in this period not the first price that someone will pay in the next period. Why? because the last price in this period is not in the next period by definition! edit: added something on illiquid stocks Illiquid stocks may have intraday gaps in the sequence of candlesticks where no trading occurred. Below is one such chart for 1pm plc.(OPM.L) a UK based leasing company (thanks to Yahoo finance for this):
From accounting perspective, an unpaid bill for internet services, according to the Accruals Concept, is recorded as a liability under 'Current Liabilities' section of the Balance Sheet. Also as an expense on the Income Statement.  So to answer your question it is both: a debt and an expense, however this is only the case at the end of the period. If you manage to pay it before the financial period ends this is simply an expense that is financed by cash or other liquid Asset on the Balance Sheet such as prepayment for example. For private persons you are generally given some time to pay the bill so it is technically a debt (Internet Provider would list you as a debtor on their accounts), but this is not something to worry about unless you are not considering to pay this bill. In which case your account may be sold as part of a factoring and you will then have a debt affecting your credit rating.
If you paid by debit/credit card, there is an expiration period to the authorization the seller is given by the merchant processor, although that timeframe is dictated by the credit card company/bank, merchant processor, and sometimes by state law.   That being said, the other posters are correct that technically, once you authorize  charge, the seller has the right to expect fulfillment of the agreement, that you would pay them X dollars for Y product.
The thing is that we never asked for these services. The banks and the merchants did. These companies build profiles **against** you to provide your credit info to any creditor who asks. Then they bill you so that they will not hand out your identity to criminals for a period of time. Great fucking system.
Revenue is not profit. The *vast* majority of that revenue goes to the rest of the value chain of the products (manufacturers &amp; distributors). [Wal-Mart's profit margin is 3.77% of revenue](http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=WMT).  It's like saying VISA gets all the hundreds of billions of dollars people put on their credit cards, which is true, for a short period of time.  But if you dont want to do any critical thinking and just looking for confirmation of your beliefs, this infographic is great. :P
Disney is an extortion racket and has been for a long time. They're the reason that copyright laws are so messed up, they're trying to claim copyright on clear public works etc......  This is very similar to Apple, or Netflix's arguments with the content producers.  There are now no distribution costs (or relatively none) and Disney believes this is another way they can screw the customer and extort more money for the product. Amazon is innovating and attempting to pass the savings on to the consumer.  This isn't news. Businesses have pricing disputes all the time, and Disney will suffer for this.  Proof is in the pudding, The Beatles didn't exist on iTunes for a long time and the Beatles suffered more than iTunes. People didn't stick with a disc-man or carry any other mobile devices to listen to their legitimate Beatles songs. They just stopped listening or acquired it illegally.  Netflix is still going strong despite missing a LOT of premium content that the producers think netflix can't survive without. They're holding out for a payday that won't happen.  Disney is doing the same. It won't work.
Eh, marginal taxation makes that latter effect fairly weak. And unemployment is hardly a competitive option in the long term. As for welfare cliffs - sure, they crop up but can hardly be expected to account for a major lack of labor supply, at least not to the extent that we shouldn't suspect that wages are below the market clearing rate.
Maybe the location isn't yet, but will soon become a new loss.  For example older soon out of warranty equipment, new tax laws in the locality soon to take affect or even just declining sales over the past periods of measurement. Perhaps labor disputes or other locality issues make running the store difficult.   There is the possibility that the land the location occupies is worth more sold to the new big box retailer than it will be in the next 10 years of operation. In some cases, companies want to have a ton of cash on hand, or would sell assets to pay off debt.
While disputes exist about how to define poverty, the poverty rate in India appears to have been on the decline for years in both percentages and raw numbers. ([source](https://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2013/07/25/how-to-read-indias-poverty-stats/)) It was thought by the end of the 20th century India would hit the Malthusian wall and starve to death. However, human ingenuity, being limitless, held that problem at bay. Now, India's official poverty rate is much closer to America's and the economy is growing at over 7% a year.
To be fair, Inland Revenue has options here. They don't have to accept this transfer pricing scheme Starbucks has come up with to funnel their profits to, almost certainly, some overseas tax haven.  I work with the Treasury team at a large British multinational pharma company in Japan. There are constant disputes between Inland Revenue and the IRS and the Japanese NTA and the British, Japanese and U.S. companies over what is an appropriate or inappropriate level of royalty for patents and trademarks owned by the three and licensed back and forth.
&gt; they have no bargaining power.  Individually, and in the long term that's true.  In the short term, most franchise businesses are running on the minimum needed labor, and even lower level management positions are still labor.  So, if several workers went on strike at once they could severely hamper operations.  If several low level managers went on strike, even more so.  There's a training period for any staff that are hired, and even a minor acclimation period for transfers.  If enough people leave all at once the store is hurt.  Corporate might keep them from going under, but they will loose money and goodwill.  All of that is before you get to picket lines and alternatives.  A smart competitor can and should milk labor disputes for all they're worth.  They should try to get as many customers as possible to go to their store instead of the one being picketed.  Collective bargaining exists because most individuals don't have much power, but as a group they do.  The idea of zero training doesn't exist.  The idea of being able to simply replace large numbers of people quickly doesn't work.  That's why places like Walmart are afraid of unions.  They are already running on the edge with their staff.  All it would take is several cashiers who were ready to leave anyways going on strike to shut the store down.  Mind you, the trick with these large companies is to do it relatively suddenly.  If they have time to prepare they can be ready to throw overtime at the people who didn't leave, or could bus in people from other stores.  Compare that to the entire kitchen crew or cashiers just not showing up one shift.
I think you're jumping to the end.  No one knows at this point.  This situation needs investigated.  They'll either find evidence, or they won't.  The courts will proceed as appropriate.  This is why the Russia investigation is a good thing.  It will either clear everyone of wrongdoing (clearing the way for his agenda), or provide evidence for impeachment.  Both are good results.  My personal opinion is that there's likely something there (but that's just speculation as you rightly point out).  I DO think the investigation needs to be impartial.  No putting a thumb on the scale for partisan purposes.  It's good that Robert Meuller has a great reputation AND is a lifelong Republican.  We should get an honest result.