vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"I haven't seen this addressed anywhere else, so I'll make a small answer to add on to the great ones already here. Money isn't the only way a person can contribute to a relationship. Time and effort are valuable contributions. Who runs the household? Who cooks, cleans, does laundry? How will you share these duties? My husband and I have a couple of rules. One of which is that we don't keep count. ""I did dishes, so you do laundry"". ""I made coffee last time, so now it's your turn"". ""I paid this, so you pay that"". That's not allowed.  I happen to make ~4x as much as my husband, but I work 4x the hours (he's part time at the moment). So, he does the dishes, he cooks, he does laundry, he runs the household. Do I value him less? No! I value him more, because he is part of the team, and he feeds me coffee while I work (we have our own business). Even though I make so much more than him, we still split everything down the middle. Because his contribution to this relationship, to this household, is so much more than just money. And I value him. I value his contribution.  At the end of the day, you are a team - and if you split hairs over finances, you'll find yourself splitting hairs over everything."
&gt;We are the second most charitable country on the planet (source: world giving index), if Granny can't find support, she isn't really looking.  Americans donated $212 billion to charity, sure, but the total Medicaid budget was $553 billion in 2016. The amount of support charity can provide just isn't as great as the amount public assistance can provide, and how could it? You will always get more money out of people when you point a gun at them than when you ask nicely.   &gt;The support is there for those genuinely in need.  I like how your assertion has a built-in way to move the goal posts. If she can't get support, then it *must* be because she didn't *genuinely* need help.   &gt;And, the money goes further because it doesn't have to pay bureaucrat salaries.  Do you not know how charities work?   They have bureaucrats too, and they don't work for free.
If you define dollar cost cost averaging as investing a specific dollar amount over a certain fixed time frame then it does not work statistically better than any other strategy for getting that money in the market.  (IE Aunt Ruth wants to invest $60,000 in the stock market and does it $5000 a month for a year.) It will work better on some markets and worse on others, but on average it won't be any better. Dollar cost averaging of this form is effectively a bet that gains will occur at the end of the time period rather than the beginning, sometimes this bet will pay off, other times it won't. A regular investment contribution of what you can afford over an indefinite time period (IE 401k contribution) is NOT Dollar Cost Averaging but it is an effective investment strategy.
This fact is distasteful and makes any attempt to justify the argument seem a thinly veiled justification for rasicim. as, if not to be racist what is the argument actually a arguing; what does his statement actually say without specifying the colour of ones skin? So to recap, I'm not entirely against the line of thought , nor that the guy said it(if he gets in the good books of his friends / shug). What I am against is a society that supports racism, the society he is supporting in making that type of statement. What I am against is the idea that if something is *True* it doesn't matter *How* it's said. (Remember your fat ass mom) I'm what I am against is the use of null arguments to justify a controversial opinion. (If the controversial aspect of the sentence is able to be taken away and it was, would it have any meaning?) Sorry if I was overly aggressive in this response, and for any grammatical mistakes, and if you have a response I would appreciate a similar amount of effort , and will do my best to subdue my bias. Thank you . Edit: grammar"
Can I transfer these money to India in my saving account? What will be tax implication to me? Yes you can. Whether you transfer to India or not does not change your tax obligation. If I understand correctly you are being paid an allowance in UK to cover your expense. If you are saving; then the saving portion is treated as income and you have to self declare this and pay tax according to you tax bracket. Can I transfer these money to my wife's account as a gift? What will be tax implication to me and my wife? There is no tax obligation to your wife. The tax obligation remain same to you as in first point. What if i transfer these money as loan refund to my friend? What will be tax implication for these to me and my friend? If there is proper paper trial to show your friend loaned you a sum at zero percentage and you have paid back; amounts are not to large; then there is no tax obligation to your friend. The tax obligation remains same to you as in point 1.
"@pyb is right - you should put an hourly dollar value on your time.  Calculate a realistic number and keep it in the back of your mind. Then when you're looking for a discount or a saving, estimate the maximum amount that you'd be able to save.  This should be a realistic proportion of the value of the item.  From those figures you can get the maximum amount of time that you should spend on looking for that discount. Spend any more than that amount of time and you lose money even if you get the discount.  So then you can end up with a few rules-of-thumb like ""don't spend more than x minutes of time per dollar of possible savings"".  Then you can spend the spare time you've created on looking for savings on big-ticket items where the time is more efficiently used... or on studying to upgrade your earning potential... or on taking some time out to enjoy the world and sniff the flowers. :)"
Your comment regarding your existing finances is very relevant and helpful. You need to understand that generally in personal finance circles, when a strong earning 22 year-old is looking for a loan it's usually a gross spending problem. Their car costs $1,000 /month and their bar tabs are adding up so the only logical thing to do is get a loan. Most 22-year-olds don't have a mortgage soaking up their income, or a newborn. With all of this in mind I essentially agree with DStanley and, personally, and many people here would probably disagree, I'd stop the 401(K) contribution and use that money to pay the debt. You're still very young from a retirement standpoint, let the current balance ride and forego the match until the debt is paid. I think this is more about being debt free at 22 quickly than it's about how much marginal money could be saved via 401(k) or personal loan or this strategy or that strategy. I think at your age, you'll benefit greatly from simply being debt free. There are other very good answers on this site and other places regarding the pitfalls of a 401(k) loan. The most serious of which is that you have an extremely limited time to pay the entire loan upon leaving the company. Failure to repay in that situation incurs tax liability and penalties. From my quick math, assuming your contribution is 8% of $70,000 /year, you're contributing something in the neighborhood of $460/month to your 401(k). If you stopped contributing you'd probably take home a high $300 number net of taxes. It'll take around 20 months to pay the loan off using this contribution money without considering your existing payments, in total you're probably looking at closer to 15 months. You'll give up something in the neighborhood of $3,500 in match funds over the repayment time. But again, you're 22, you'll resume your contributions at 24; still WAY ahead of most people from a retirement savings standpoint. I don't think my first retirement dollar was contributed until I was about 29.
Think about it this way. If the strike price is $200, and cost of the option is $0.05. $200 + $0.05 is $200.05. That does not mean that the price of buying the option is more. Neither is the option writer going to pay you $70 to buy the contract.  When you are buying options, you can only have a limited downside and that is the premium that you pay for it.  In case of the $115 contract, your total loss could be a maximum of $19.3.  In case of the $130 contract, your total loss could be a maximum of $9.3. This is due to the fact that the chances of AAPL going to hit $130 is less than the chance of AAPL hitting $115. Therefore, option writers offer the lower probability contracts at a lower price.  Long story short, you do not pay for the Strike price. You only pay the premium and that premium keeps getting lower with and increase in Strike price(Or decrease if it is a put option). Strike price is just a number that you expect the stock or index to break. I would suggest you to read up a little more on pricing from here
I walked away from a house last year and don't regret it a single bit.  I owed $545,000 and the bank sold it a month after moving out for $328,900.  So technically I guess I can be on the  hook to someone for the missing $216,100 for many years to come.  Oh well.  They can come after me if they want and I'll declare bankruptcy then.
The big difference for me is that my contribution thorough a cafeteria plan also skips Social Security and Medicare taxes. That is a 6.2% (SS) + 1.45% (Medicare) tax on those contributions if done outside a cafeteria plan. Some companies make a contribution to a the HSA. If you handle your contributions outside of their channels they may see you as a non-participant, and not make any matching contributions. You might have to put a minimum amount into the company setup HSA.  The non-company HSA may also charge fees that the company one doesn't. Regarding the taxes: If you contribute $3,000 to the HSA via post tax, your paychecks would have had an extra $229.50 paid into social security/Medicare. There is no mechanism to get this refunded.
"I (and probably most considering trading) had a similar thought as you.  I thought if I just skimmed the peaks and sold before the troughs, perhaps aided by computer, I'd be able to make a 2% here, 2% there, and that would add up quickly to a nice amount of money.  It almost did seem ""foolproof"". Then I realized that sometimes a stock just slides...down...and there is no peak higher than what I bought it for.  ""That's OK,"" I'd think, ""I'm sure it will recover and surpass the price I bought it for...so now I play the waiting game.""  But then it continues sliding, and my $10k is now worth $7k.  Do I sell?  Did I build a stop loss point into my computer program?  If so, what is the right place to put that stop?  What if there is a freak dip down and it triggers the stop loss but THEN my stock recovers?  I just lost $14,000 like this last week--luckily, only virtually! The point is, your idea only has half a chance to work when there is a mildly volatile stock that stays around some stable baseline, and even then it is not easy.  And then you factor in fees as others mentioned... People do make money doing this (day traders), and some claim you can use technical analysis to time orders well, so if you want to try that, read about technical analysis on this site or elsewhere."
"If you have wage income that is reported on a W2 form, you can contribute the maximum of your wages, what you can afford, or $5500 in a Roth IRA.   One advantage of this is that the nominal amounts you contribute can always be removed without tax consequences, so a Roth IRA can be a deep emergency fund (i.e., if the choice is $2000 in cash as emergency fund or $2000 in cash in a 2015 Roth IRA contribution, choice 2 gives you more flexibility and optimistic upside at the risk of not being able to draw on interest/gains until you retire or claim losses on your tax return).  If you let April 15 2016 pass by without making a Roth IRA contribution, you lose the 2015 limit forever.  If you are presently a student and partially employed, you are most likely in the lowest marginal tax rate you will be in for decades, which utilizes the Roth tax game effectively.   If you're estimating ""a few hundred"", then what you pick as an investment is going to be less important than making the contributions.  That is, you can pick any mutual fund that strikes your fancy and be prepared to gain or lose, call it $50/year (or pick a single stock and be prepared to lose it all).  At some point, you need to understand your emotions around volatility, and the only tuition for this school is taking a loss and having the presence of mind to examine any panic responses you may have.  No reason not to learn this on ""a few hundred"".  While it's not ideal to have losses in a Roth, ""a few hundred"" is not consequential in the long run.   If you're not prepared at this time in your life for the possibility of losing it all (or will need the money within a year or few, as your edit suggests), keep it in cash and try to reduce your expenses to contribute more.  Can you contribute another $100?  You will have more money at the end of the year than investment choice will likely return."
The Globe and Mail has an interesting article on what you can do with your RRSPs. Be aware that the article is from early 2011 and rules change. They describe holding your own mortgage inside your RRSP. That is, if you have $100,000 inside your RRSP already and your remaining mortgage is $100,000, you can use that money to pay off your mortgage, then pay back the money at interest, generating a tax-deferred profit inside your RRSP. That approach may be viable, though you'd want to talk to your accountant first. I'd be very cautious about loaning money to someone else for a second mortgage using my RRSP, though. Second mortgages are inherently risky, so this is a very speculative investment. Once you make an RRSP contribution, that space is used up (barring a couple of exceptions such as the life-long learning plan). So, let's say you used $100,000 of your RRSP to loan to someone for a second mortgage. Any interest payments should be sheltered inside the RRSP (substantial benefit), but if the person defaults on the second mortgage (which you should expect to be a significant possibility), you've lost your entire $100,000 contribution room (as well as, obviously, the $100,000 that you loaned out). I can't tell you whether or not it makes sense to invest in risky second-mortgage loans and I can't tell you whether, if you choose to do so, it definitely should be done inside an RRSP. There are substantial risks in the loan and there are both costs and benefits to doing so inside an RRSP. Hopefully, though, I've helped you understand the questions you should be asking yourself.
The prime rate is the interest rate banks use amongst themselves to lend money to each other only. It is used as the basis (sometimes) for what interest rate banks charge you.  The prime rate is based loosely on the Fed rate.  There is a committee that meets regularly to set this and other industry interest rates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_rate I am not 100% positive the following is totally accurate The banks keep our deposits and pay us interest for doing so.  They are paying us interest because they take yours, mine and everybody elses deposits as a large lump sum and invest that money.  Sometimes as business loans, sometimes as mortgages and sometimes as credit card. The banks have a book of business that will be EXACTLY how much credit they have extended to everybody.  But they do not keep that amount of cash in the vaults, only some smaller percentage of that large amount.  When I use my credit card and they need to transfer money to amazon.com, if they don't happen to have enough cash that day, they will just borrow from another bank that does, and the interest rate they pay to do so is the prime rate.  Since they are paying interest on the money they borrow to pay the debt I charged because they told me my credit was worth so much (...???...) they charge me a little bit more than that. Hence your credit card or mortgage's APR being based on the prime rate. I THINK that is what they do  If I am wrong leave a comment and I will update, or the mods can.
Young vs old doesn't really make a difference.  What's in play in the Roth/After Tax vs Traditional/Pretax decision is your current marginal tax bracket versus your probable taxation in retirement.   Since your company matches something on the pretax account it makes sense to max out the pretax contribution match amount before considering roth contributions.  If the match is something like 50% of your contribution up to 3% of your salary, that's an instant 50% return on your contribution and you can't really beat that.
Unfortunately that's the most recent full report on things I know of, it was published in December. The current stats can be found elsewhere online. Currently Instagram is surging and has been since March, it's now bigger than Twitter.   Also I believe those stats in the report are based off people who use the network at least once a day. This would include Messenger.   I'm a social media marketer and consultant. The irony is like you I primarily use Facebook as a way to talk to people, I do participate in some groups but other than that I actually have my news feed blocked.   Twitter is a massive time suck to market on, and not my favorite so I just automated that.   Instagram is currently my favorite social media site and I think many Millennials would agree with that. People are highly visual, so it makes sense Instagram is surging. That and there's a lot less drama and bullshit on Instagram in my experience.
Everyone is worried about Google and Apple or Facebook. Amazon is just swooping in collecting all your personal info via Alexa and buying up businesses. I mean not that there's anything wrong with that. I am looking forward to the day, I go to work for Amazon, live in my Amazon house, drive an Amazon Basics car and wear my favorite Amazon clothes.
OP might. I have worked for a conservative organization before, and while I didn't make friends, I did behave in a professional fashion and maintained all my interactions with them within strict professional boundaries.  True, that doesn't get you invited to any after hour beers, but there was the experience I gained in the work I was performing.
Most of the commercials that I see online are for really expensive shit that I can't afford anyway (like luxury cars)... so it's kind of a moot point.   I wouldn't alter my behavior in any way (either positive or negative) due to a commercial.  Sure, they're a minor annoyance, but if I saw my favorite cereal in a commercial, I wouldn't boycott it.
I believe there are two ways new money is created: My favorite description of this (money creation) comes from Chris Martenson: the video is here on Youtube. And yes, I believe both can create inflation. In fact this is what happened in the US between 2004 and 2007: increasing loans to households to buy houses created an inflation of home prices.
greenspans is arguing that the company isn't capable of negoiating away a promise, because if workers want to make this deal, they might be able to turn it into a good one.   It's like winning the lottery in a sense. I can either take payments of $20,000 for the rest of my life, or I can get $6 million now. Well the lottery doesn't continue payments after my death. So I need that money now, so I can turn it into real currency. Take out taxes and I actually have something that I can turn into a better asset.   Some of these folks will fuck up, mind you, but they should be given the opportunity to succeed. Maybe in their area there's some property they can invest in with their payment.  Obviously if the majority of the workers are underwater, giving them a short-term payout to clear their debts before they start begging the state for money probably won't work out well, but again, they should at least be allowed their own choice in the matter.
That said, do I have silver/gold in my retirement portfolio? Absolutely. Is it a huge percentage of my portfolio? Not right now. However, if the U.S. government fails to resolve the next budget crisis and forces the Federal Reserve to ""print"" money to creatively fund their expenses, then I will be trading out of soft assets classes and into precious metals in order to preserve the ""real value"" of my portfolio in the face of a depreciating USD. As for what to diversify into? Like the folks above say: ETFs(NOT precious metal ETFs and read all of the fine print, since a number of ETFs cheat), Indexes, Dividend-paying stocks (a favorite of mine, assuming they maintain the dividend), or bonds (after they raise the interest rates). Once you have your diversification percentages decided, then you just adjust that based on macro-economic trends, in order to avoid pitfalls. If you want to know more, look through: http://www.mauldineconomics.com/ < Austrian-type economist/investor http://pragcap.com/ < Neo-Keynsian economist/investor with huge focus on fiat currency effects"
"How does Equifax lose sales after a breech?  Unless their data has been corrupted or falsified, it's still good to sell or charge for each credit pull.    I think it's very different from say, a consumer facing organization like Sony or Target or Anthem.  Although even in all 3 cases, you can argue they didn't lose much market share; all three are above their pre-hack prices.    The goal is to allow the market to set a price on the value of security for the rest of the companies in the industry.  I don't think the penalty should be ""death"" but considering their total assets is $10B, I don't think any fair penalty would allow the organization to survive.  If they were Apple with $820B market cap, then yeah, the $70B would be a harsh and fair, but survivable penalty."
I was unemployed for 9 months (have been gainfully employed again for 2 months now).  I'm in digital marketing so I did some social media volunteer work for a high profile non-profit and put it in my resume.  While there were a number of factors that helped me get a job, this did in part contribute to it as I demonstrated that I'm actually interested in my career path and staying current. In addition, my work was tangible and public, which was a huge plus as I had a portfolio.  So I would highly recommend volunteering for a local organization within your area of expertise to show that your skills are current.  In speaking with HR people, skills atrophy is one of the main reasons why longer term unemployed people are not as attractive.