vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"In theory, the trust admin (the trustee/custodian) should have filed the 1041 each year. The trust should have either (a) paid tax on any gains or (b) distributed the gains to her along with a nice Schedule K-1, showing that she had income from the trust and was responsible for the tax on that income. In effect, the trust took that distribution to her as a deduction against its own income, thus negating the need to pay tax at the trust rate. Yes, if under $600, it could retain the income and still pay no tax.  Now, when she gets this money, and it seems it's all being distributed by your choice of ""the money"" not ""some money"", it's not taxable, or at least shouldn't be. The corpus of a trust is already post tax money (unless of course, it's somehow pretax IRA or 401(k) money), which is not so common."
The proposed LightSquared service uses a frequency band (wavelength) that is adjacent to the GPS frequency band. A receiver *selectivity* is its ability to pass the desired signal and reject all others. This task is difficult if the desired signal is *close* an unwanted signal, and particularly difficult if the unwanted signal is much stronger than the desired signal.  The task to be sufficiently selective here does not appear to be impossible (one out of four were not disturbed), but GPS receiver designers in general, apparently didn't see the need to spend the additional resources to reject an unwanted adjacent that wasn't there. The frequency-band that LightSquared proposes to use was designated for satellite communication.
For an app that's distributed on the internet at large (which pretty much rules out mobile for a general audience, but setting that aside...) your only protection is either a) trust the company, or b) trust the community to have audited the source code. A new startup shouldn't be trusted enough for (a). For (b) it's not every individual user that needs to understand all the implications, but an app that becomes semi-popular would likely attract enough geeks who have audited the source code or tested the app in a sandbox to raise red flags if anything is awry. Hopefully anything truly nefarious would lead to an outcry the would scare away even a non-technical user (it's certainly debatable whether this is realistic but it's not far-fetched).  To be even remotely popular with a general audience though, an app like this would need to be distributed through the walled-garden app stores from Apple/Google/Microsoft. In that case users are trusting the gatekeeper to exclude an app that was discovered to be doing something malicious. This provides some protection even if the source code is hidden.
In 1984, Sears Roebuck bought the Greenwood Trust Company of Greenwood, Delaware and launched Discover Card (originally as a Sears card).  1984 NYT story You used to be able to pay Discover bills in person at Sears cashiers.  Sears soon spun it off.  In 2000 Greenwood Trust renamed itself Discover Bank.
Trust me man, I've been cold e-mailing and calling any alumnus that will will let me, but most don't even throw me a bone. I am looking. Definitely not going to be another credit analyst at a shitty bank.
Where as with normal / stable / long term market performance (i.e. no horrible devaluation of the market) it could be worth £198K! Going forwards from those 2 hypothetical positions, assuming total market stability for the rest of your life and the same reasonable dividend payouts, this one year of devaluation at the start of your pensions life is enough to reduce the time your pension pot can afford to pay out £1000 per month from 36 years to 24 years. Even if every year after that devaluation is an extra 1% higher return it could still only improve to 30 years. Normally of course, any stocks and shares investment is a long term investment and long term the income should be good, but pensions usually diversify into less and less risky investments as they get close to maturity, holding a certain amount of cash and bonds as well, so in my view a SIPP with stocks and shares should be AT MOST just a part of your strategy, and if you can't watch your pension pot payout term shrink from 26 years to 24 years hold your nerve, then maybe a SIPP with stocks and shares should be a smaller part! When you're dependent on your SIPP for income a market crash could cause you to make bad decisions and lose even more income. All that said now, even with all the new taxes and loss of tax deductible costs, etc, I think your property idea might not be a bad one. It's just diversification at the end of the day, and that's rarely a bad thing. I really DON'T think you should consider it to be a magic bullet though, it's not impossible to get a 10% yield from a property, but usually you won't. I assume you've never done buy to let before, so I would encourage you to set up a spread sheet and model it carefully. If you are realistic then you should find that you have to find really REALLY exceptional properties to get that sort of return, and you won't find them all the time. When you do your spread sheet, make sure you take into account all the one off buying costs, build a ledger effectively, so that you can plot all your costs, income and on going balance, and then see what payouts your model can afford over a reasonable number of years (say 10).
Yeah that's not really that many employees seeing as how big Twitter has become. Twitter may seem simple too upkeep from the outside looking in but trust me it requires a lot more than you would think, 3000 may even be a small number.
"I would say ""yes"" to your question.  CD's purchased from a bank on your behalf by your broker will be FDIC insured and safe.  However, be aware that no one is examining the broker except you to ensure that each CD is actually purchased from an FDIC insured bank.  Don't trust them blindly. See risks mentioned by the FDIC on the subject Remember, the broker should not originate the CD, so the broker's lack of FDIC protection is irrelevant.  The job of a broker is to buy things on your behalf.  If your broker does that appropriately and sticks with FDIC insured CD's, you will be insured. Given the risks and gotchas mentioned in the link, buying directly from a bank instead of through your broker still sounds like good advice to me but you can make your own decision based on your level of trust and aversion to inconvenience."
In finance, short selling (also known as shorting or going short) is the practice of selling assets, usually securities, that have been borrowed from a third party (usually a broker) with the intention of buying identical assets back at a later date to return to the lender. Remember your broker has to borrow it from somewhere, other clients or if they hold those specific stocks themselves. So if it isn't possible for them to lend you those stocks, they wouldn't. High P/E stocks would find more sellers than buyers, and if the broker has to deliver them, it would be a nightmare for him to deliver all those stocks, which he had lent you(others) back to whom he had borrowed from, as well as to people who had gone long(buy) when you went short(sell). And if every body is selling there is going to be a dearth of stocks to be borrowed from as everybody around is selling instead of buying.
"In some sense, the share repurchasing program is better if the company does not foresee the same profit levels down the road.  Paying a dividend for several years and then suddenly not paying or reducing a dividend is viewed as a ""slap in the face"" by investors.  Executing a share repurchase program one year and then not the next is not viewed as negatively. From an investor's standpoint, I would say a dividend is preferred over a share repurchase program for a similar reason.  Typically companies that pay a dividend have been doing so for quite some time and even increasing it over time as the company increases profits.  So, it can be assumed that if a company starts paying a dividend, it will do so for the long-run."
I agree with you: it sounds like a scam. Those terms are too good to be true.  Online, it is too easy to pretend to be someone you are not. When choosing a bank to work with, you need to be confident of its legitimacy. Make sure you have heard of it someplace other than their own website and can trust it. In this case, this isn't even a bank; it is just an individual stranger. I can't see how this could possibly be legitimate.  With the information that they are asking for, they could potentially impersonate you and steal your money. I would stay away from this.
Included in our everyday living goes out the house and purchase different things which our family desires. But since the economy isn't doing well right now, considering the best dividend stocks is vital. One factor that must be taken into consideration could be the expense.   If you are knowledgeable with getting what you see without even looking at the sale price, you should customize the way you live your life. Patience is extremely important for you to be able to find the best dividend stocks. If possible, you need to look for a less costly alternative on the costly items you used to buy. Be persistent and also save money!
"it is the amount of trust you put in the investments... to be honest, noone could've predicted anything because it was a new market, along with a whole new type of currency (also along with no banks or institutions that could ""alter"" the natural way a currency would evolve)"
"It would be ideal if the last would change regarding anything that goes horribly wrong. The whole point of setting up rules is to avoid both hypothetical and past mistakes. The fact that so many coastal cities don't have proper systems to manage the stormwater that comes into their cities is appalling. And that's just an extreme example, whereas many infrastructure problems are more passive.  I wouldn't trust a private corporation to set up a highway. It may be considered economically stimulating in some ways, but they will do the bare minimum in terms of quality and safety and then charge you $5 a trip. When government gets involved in building the infrastructure it tends to be frustratingly slow and inefficient from the outside, but there is so much planning and preparing for eventualities that goes into it that it just can't be set up in a few months. There may be future developments coming or it may be integrated with other systems to streamline travel or any of a plethora of reasons.  I work in infrastructure so I know I have a different view compared to people that just want to have their today built so they can use it. It's really hard to see but problems and have to say we'll be getting to that in 5-10 years, just live with it in the meantime. But I don't want someone to say ""I'm tired of waiting in traffic, here's a piece of land, let's put a road through there"" with no plan for what to do with it. So many problems that we're dealing with now are caused by shortsightedness fifty years ago, and now it's a hell of a lot harder to fix than it would've been to do it right in the first place."
If you will leave the money invested for a good long while (years) then dividend paying stocks would be appropriate. There are many that pay yields of 3 to 4 percent, which you can take as income or reinvest to compound the growth. There is a lot of good analysis of stocks (and mutual funds that specialize in dividend paying stocks) at Morningstar.com
Option three is our preferred method, and we never argue about money. First we did a budget to work out ALL monthly joint out-goings (mortgage, bills, grocery etc). Then we each agreed who would pay what into the joint or household account - at the moment, I earn more than my wife, so I pay more, but we sit down every three or four months, to see if it needs adjusting. This way, we each keep our own individual accounts private, but pay what is necessary into the household account. We also set up a joint savings account; often at the end of the month, we'll have a little extra left in the household acount, and we siphon that off into joint savings to cover future unexpected costs - looks like our tumble dryer is on its last spin cycle at the moment, for example, and the joint savings account will be able to cover the cost of replacement. it all takes a bit of administration - but, as I say, we've never had a cross word about money, so the system seems to work.
Look at the aristocrat dividend paying stocks (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%26P_500_Dividend_Aristocrats).  These all pay dividends and have consistently outperformed the S&P 500 - 10.6% vs 7.4% the last ten years. While stocks should not be generally considered for short-term investing, I personally think the market is showing a general up trend for the next few years.  Also, the dividends add an additional buffer.   Because you would be making regular monthly investments, you should choose a fund that invests in  aristocrat stocks so you can set up an automatic  depost.
The DEA does care a lot. You are very, very, very unlikely to be busted by the DEA for following your states laws. Youre talking about one family.    Edit: looked more into this article. It doesnt mention the DEA anywhere, and this is on their closing remarks. This page to be taken with a spoonful of salt:  &gt;Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.  &gt;**Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.**  &gt;**Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.**
Well, I personally don't get my news from Facebook, so I wouldn't say that I trust them.  But I also don't think they have a reason to go out of their way to censor conservative news stories.  Every time I've seen conservatives complain about this sort of thing, it centers around stories with may be rooted in truth, but have been perverted/spun into things that aren't true at all.
This story really misses the point of this deal. This is not an inversion fueled by tax savings. In fact, it would likely end up in very little tax savings for the new companies given the effective tax rate that BK actually pays in the US (They actually pay 27% in the US vs about 26.5% in Ontario, where Tim Horton's is now).  Headquartering the new company in Canada has a lot more to do with placating Canadian regulators. The Investment Canada Act allows for the government to block any merger it doesn't see as in the best interests of the country. Clearly, one of it's biggest and most visible companies  being swallowed up by an American firm could fit that description. Politically, it is easy to see why regulators would have an issue with that.  However, if you make the new company Canadian... then it's seen as a win for regulators.
Investment in public infrastructure is different than subsidy to private companies. Comparison to the interstate system here is irrelevant.   The state of Wisconsin is giving a company $230k per worker per year in tax breaks for jobs that will pay the workers $53k per year. There is no tax rate that can earn that investment back for the state. In fact, that state income tax rate on these salaries is 6.27%. Even considering all of the additional jobs that will be created for construction and as an effect of having a large employer in the area, this investment will never pay for itself in terms of taxes generated.
LIBOR rate swaps are common most among an international bank and a with a branch in another country, so say Company A is located in Kenya and Company B is in the US, A can borrow $100M from the US and B the same from Kenya and agree to swap assuming that A borrowed at a fixed rate of say 5% and B borrowed for say a 6 month LIBOR rate of maybe 4.2% which increases at a rate of say 0.5% above the prior 6 moth libor rate for time t being 5 years.A is the fixed rate payer and B is the floating  rate payer.
You could take these definitions from MSCI as an example of how to proceed.  They calculate price indices (PR) and total return indices (including dividends).  For performance benchmarks the net total return (NR) indices are usually the most relevant. In your example the gross total return (TR) is 25%. From the MSCI Index Defintions page :- The MSCI Price Indexes measure the price performance of markets   without including dividends. On any given day, the price return of an   index captures the sum of its constituents’ free float-weighted market   capitalization returns. The MSCI Total Return Indexes measure the price performance of markets   with the income from constituent dividend payments. The MSCI Daily   Total Return (DTR) Methodology reinvests an index constituent’s   dividends at the close of trading on the day the security is quoted   ex-dividend (the ex-date). Two variants of MSCI Total Return Indices are calculated: With Gross Dividends: Gross total return indexes reinvest as much as possible of a company’s   dividend distributions. The reinvested amount is equal to the total   dividend amount distributed to persons residing in the country of the   dividend-paying company. Gross total return indexes do not, however,   include any tax credits. With Net Dividends: Net total return indexes reinvest dividends after the deduction of   withholding taxes, using (for international indexes) a tax rate   applicable to non-resident institutional investors who do not benefit   from double taxation treaties.
"I agree. Its ridiculous.  The US refuses to alter its uncompetitive corporate tax rate and laws on cash repatriation and what is the response?  Blame companies for being ""unpatriotic"" and have politicians shame them in the media.  It's been going on for decades and hasn't worked yet."
Sales tax permits come from the state in which your business is operating.  You need a business license first for them to issue you one. US sales taxes are collected by the business and remitted to the government, you need the permit in order to do this. A bigger question is whether it's legal for you to engage in business in the first place.  What is your visa status?
"Yahoo's ""Adj Close"" data is adjusted for splits, but not for dividends. Despite Yahoo's webpage's footnote saying  *Close price adjusted for dividends and splits. we can see empirically that the ""Adj Close"" is only adjusted for splits. For example, consider Siemens from Jan 27, 2017 to Mar 15, 2017: The Adj Close adjusts for splits: On any particular day, the ""Adj Close"" is equal to the ""Close"" price divided by the cumulative product of all splits that occurred after that day. If there have been no splits after that day, then the ""Adj Close"" equals the ""Close"" price. Since there is a 2-for-1 split on Mar 14, 2017, the Adj Close is half the Close price for all dates from Jan 27, 2017 to Mar 13, 2017. Note that if Siemens were to split again at some time in the future, the Adj Close prices will be readjusted for this future split. For example, if Siemens were to split 3-for-1 tomorrow, then all the Adj Close prices seen above will be divided by 3. The Adj Close is thus showing the price that a share would have traded on that day if the shares had already been split in accordance with all splits up to today. The Adj Close does not adjust for dividends: Notice that Siemens distributed a $1.87 dividend on Feb 02, 2017 and ~$3.74 dividend on Jan 30, 2017. If the Adj Close value were adjusted for these dividends then we should expect the Adj Close should no longer be exactly half of the Close amount. But we can see that there is no such adjustment -- the Adj Close remains (up to rounding) exactly half the Close amount: Note that in theory, the market reacts to the distribution of dividends by reducing the trading price of shares post-dividend. This in turn is reflected in the raw closing price. So in that sense the Adj Close is also automatically adjusted for dividends. But there is no formula for this. The effect is already baked in through the market's closing prices."
Frequently this kind of loophole exists because the number of people using it were sufficiently low not to warrant policing ( if the policing costs more than the tax recovered, then it is more efficient to ignore it) or because at some stage the scheme has been perfectly legal (as in the old offshore'education' trust recommended by the government a few decades ago). When Gordon Brown set out a 75% tax rate (for his possibly ideological reasons rather than financially based ones)for those who had these accounts , he encountered opposition from MPs who were going to be caught up paying high tax bills for what was effctively retrospective taxation, so there was a built in 'loophole' to allow the funds to be returned without undue penalty. If you think that is morally wrong, consider what the response would be if a future Chancellor was to declare all IAs the work of the devil and claim that retrospective tax would need to be paid on all ISA transactions over the last few decades.eg: tot up all the dividends and capital gains made on an ISA in any year and pay 40% tax on all of them, even if that took the ISA into negative territory because the value today was low/ underperfoming. Yet this has been sggested as a way of filling in the hole in the budget on the grounds that anyone with an ISA can be represented as 'rich' to a selected party of voters.
Assuming the United States. This is a loan and not an investment.  You report this as income and will pay your tax rate on the 18% of the money that the borrower pays you (any money paid above what was originally lent) for the year in which it was received. You owe taxes on the income even if the borrower does not send you a Form 1099-INT showing the interest you received. For example: If you loan $10,000 and receive $1,800 in interest, and your tax bracket is 25%, then you will owe $450 in tax.
"Bottom line is this: there's no ""short term capital gains tax"" in the US. There's only long term capital gains tax, which is lower than the regular (aka ordinary) tax rates. Short term capital gains are taxed using the ordinary tax rates, depending on your bracket. So if you're in the 25% bracket - your short term gains are taxed at 25%. You're describing two options: For the case #1 you'll pay 25% tax (your marginal rate) + 10% penalty (flat rate), total 35%. For the case #2 you'll pay 25% tax (your marginal rate) + 0% penalty. Total 25%. Thus, by withdrawing from IRA you'll be 10% worse than by realizing capital gains. In addition, if you need $10K - taking it from IRA will make the whole amount taxable. While realizing capital gains from a taxable account will make only the gains taxable, the original investment amount is yours and had been taxed before. So not only there's a 10% difference in the tax rate, there's also a significant difference in the amount being taxed. Thus, withdrawing from IRA is generally not a good idea, and you will never be better off with withdrawing from IRA than with cashing out taxable investments (from tax perspective). That's by design."
The reason for the imbalance has to do with ownership.  Ownership results in dividends.  Taxes have little to do with it *except* that it was decided that the income that arises from ownership not be taxed at the same rate that income gained from labor is taxed.  *That* is the real inequality, and that is how 62 people gained most of the wealth of the world.
The alternative isn't too bad. Invest in a regular account. The dividends and cap gains will see favorable tax treatment. In my opinion, much of the magic of the retirement account is with 401(k) matched deposits.  The benefit you'll miss is the long term opportunity to skim income off the top, at say, 25%, have it grow, and then withdraw it at a much lower average tax rate. If that benefit doesn't outweigh the fear of the 10%, stick with my first thought above.
For the record, now that 2011 is here we know that the capital gains tax rate didn't change. Congress extended it for two more years. This shows the uncertainty in trying to maximize earnings based on future changes to the tax code.