vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Long term gov't bonds fluctuate in price with a seemingly small interest rate fluctuation because many years of cash inflows are discounted at low rates.  This phenomenon is dulled in a high interest rate environment. For example, just the principal repayment is worth ~1/3, P * 1/(1+4%)^30, what it will be in 30 years at 4% while an overnight loan paying an unrealistic 4% is worth essentially the same as the principal, P * 1/(1+4%)^(1/365). This is more profound in low interest rate economies because, taking the countries undergoing the present misfortune, one can see that their overnight interest rates are double US long term rates while their long term rates are nearly 10x as large as US long term rates.  If there were much supply at the longer maturities which have been restrained by interest rates only manageable by the highly skilled or highly risky, a 4% increase on a 30% bond is only about a 20% decline in bond price while a 4% increase on a 4% bond is a 50% decrease. The easiest long term bond to manipulate quantitatively is the perpetuity where p is the price of the bond, i is the interest payment per some arbitrary period usually 1 year, and r is the interest rate paid per some arbitrary period usually 1 year.  Since they are expressly linked, a price can be implied for a given interest rate and vice versa if the interest payment is known or assumed. At a 4% interest rate, the price is At 4.04%, the price is , a 1% increase in interest rates and a 0.8% decrease in price . Longer term bonds such as a 30 year or 20 year bond will not see as extreme price movements. The constant maturity 30 year treasury has fluctuated between 5% and 2.5% to ~3.75% now from before the Great Recession til now, so prices will have more or less doubled and then reduced because bond prices are inversely proportional to interest rates as generally shown above. At shorter maturities, this phenomenon is negligible because future cash inflows are being discounted by such a low amount.  The one month bill rarely moves in price beyond the bid/ask spread during expansion but can be expected to collapse before a recession and rebound during.
I agree with your strategy of using a conservative estimate to overpay taxes and get a refund next year. As a self-employed individual you are responsible for paying self-employment tax (which means paying Social Security and Medicare tax for yourself as both: employee and an employer.) Current Social Security Rate is 6.2% and Medicare is 1.45%, so your Self-employment tax is 15.3% (7.65%X2) Assuming you are single, your effective tax rate will be over 10% (portion of your income under $ 9,075), but less than 15% ($9,075-$36,900), so to adopt a conservative approach, let's use the 15% number.  Given Self-employment and Federal Income tax rate estimates, very conservative approach, your estimated tax can be 30% (Self-employment tax plus income tax) Should you expect much higher compensation, you might move to the 25% tax bracket and adjust this amount to 40%.
Some countries, like the United States, allow a mortgage interest tax deduction.  This means the interest you pay on a mortgage, which is typically much more than half of the monthly payment at the beginning of a 25 year mortgage, is tax deductible, so you might get 33% or more of the interest back, and that effectively makes the interest rate significantly lower.  Therefore you are borrowing the money really cheap.  That makes MrChrister's answer even more appropriate.
Dish is just as bad. After my initial 2 year program. They changed the line up of channels I got. I didn't mind the price went up about $15. But to get all the channels I had before I would have to go up 2 tier levels and that would cost another $30 a month. Only reason I stay is satellite has never gone out even in storms and high wind like my cable did.
HMRC calls it: Averaging for creators of literary or artistic works, and it is the averaging of your profits for 2 successive years. It's helpful in situations like you describe, where income can fluctuate wildly from year to year, the linked article has the full detail, but some of the requirements are: You can use averaging if: you’re self-employed or in a partnership, and the business started   before 6 April 2014 and didn’t end in the 2015 to 2016 tax year  your   profits are wholly or mainly from literary, dramatic, musical or   artistic works or from designs  you or your business partner (if you’re   in a partnership) created the works personally. Additionally: Check that your profit for the poorer year, minus any adjusted amounts, is less than 75% of the figure for your better year. If it is, you can use averaging. Then, check if the difference between your profits for the 2 years is more than 30% of your profit for the better year. If it is, work out the average by adding together the profits for the 2 years, and divide the total by 2.
There is a significant tie between housing prices and mortgage rates. As such, don't assume low mortgage rates mean you will be financially better off if you buy now, since housing prices are inversely correlated with mortgage rates. This isn't a huge correlation - it's R-squared is a bit under 20%, at a 1.5-2 year lag - but there is a significant connection there. Particularly in that 10%+ era (see chart at end of post for details) in 1979-1982, there was a dramatic drop in housing price growth that corresponded with high interest rates. There is a second major factor here, though, one that is likely much more important: why the interest rates are at 10%. Interest rates are largely set to follow the Federal Funds rate (the rate at which the Federal Reserve loans to banks). That rate is set higher for essentially one purpose: to combat inflation. Higher interest rates means less borrowing, slower economic growth, and most importantly, a slower increase in the money supply - all of which come together to prevent inflation. Those 10% (and higher!) rates you heard about? Those were in the 70's and early 80's. Anyone remember the Jimmy Carter years? Inflation in the period from 1979 to 1981 averaged over 10%. Inflation in the 70s from 1973 to 1982 averaged nearly 9% annually. That meant your dollar this year was worth only $0.90 next year - which means inevitably a higher cost of borrowing. In addition to simply keeping pace with inflation, the Fed also uses the rate as a carrot/stick to control US inflation. They weren't as good at that in the 70s - they misread economic indicators in the late 1970s significantly, lowering rates dramatically in 1975-1977 (from ~12% to ~5%). This led to the dramatic double-digit inflation of the 1979-1981 period, requiring them to raise rates to astronomic levels - nearly 20% at one point. Yeah, I hope nobody bought a house on a fixed-rate mortgage from 1979-1981.
eh on second thought Suppose I earned $1 Billion per year.  then 10,000*365 = 3,650,000 and  3,650,000 / 1,000,000,000 = 0.35% of my yearly income in terms of percentage costs.  If someone makes $20,000 per year and spends $500 a month on rent then   500*12 = 6,000   6,000/20,000 =  30% of ones yearly income in terms percentage costs.... sooooo yeaaaah Is swap that rent percentage any day of the week. At 20,000 a year a rental rate of .35% comes out to a monthly rent of $5.84.  I'll take the Billionaire yacht mansion.  [edit in response to the above edited comment]:  You're right I'm a billionaire i don't got time for maintenance. I'm just gonna buy a new one every year AND Im gonna assume that operating costs are $40,000,000 per year on top of buying a new $40,000,000 each year which comes out to $80,000,000:   80,000,000/1,000,000,000 = 8%   STILL GONNA TAKE THE BILLIONAIRE YAGHT OVER THE NORMAL RENT  To be clear 30% of 1 Billion is 3 Hundred Million: which means as a billionaire I could buy **25** $40 Million yachts.    [Moar Edit]: Ok like Since Ive got a super Yacht for just 8% of a billion this extra $920 Million Is burning a hole in my pocket.  I'm gonna buy 40 $2 million homes (one for each top  city) which leaves me with only $840 Million.  I gonna buuuuy A Hillary Clinton Level politician ($200 Million or so). So got $640 Million left...
"Inflation is a bad thing.  It makes it much more difficult for people to compare prices and prosperity over a long period of time.  This causes people to ignore the wisdom of their elders (who remember prices from a long time ago). Back in my day, you could get a burger and fries for 15 cents -- a dime for the burger, and a nickel for the fries.   But the minimum wage was only a quarter an hour!  That doesn't help me decide if things have gotten better or worse. How long is ""a long period of time""?  That depends on the inflation rate. At 1 percent per year, 50 or 100 years is ""a long time"". At 10 percent per year, 5 or 10 years. At 100 percent per year, a few months. Because of the Spanish conquests of gold and silver mines in Mexico and Peru, prices in the sixteenth century rose by a factor of 5.5 during the century.  This inflation was recognized as causing lots of social and governmental problems.  Note that this means an average inflation rate of 2 percent per year for a century is known to be a very bad thing. There are several reasons that most governments want some inflation:"
"First of all, congratulations on being in an incredible financial position.  you have done well. So let's look at the investment side first.   If you put 400,000 in a decent index fund at an average 8% growth, and add 75,000 every year, in 10 years you'll have about $1.95 Million, $800k of which is capital gain (more or less due to market risk, of course) - or $560k after 30% tax.  If you instead put it in the whole life policy at 1.7% you'll have about $1.3 Million, $133k of which is tax-free capital gain. So the insurance is costing you $430K in opportunity cost, since you could have done something different with the money for more return.   The fund you mentioned (Vanguard Wellington) has a 10-year annualized growth of 7.13%.  At that growth rate, the opportunity cost is $350k.  Even with a portfolio with a more conservative 5% growth rate, the opportunity cost is $178k Now the life insurance.  Life insurance is a highly personal product, but I ran a quick quote for a 65-year old male in good health and got a premium of $11,000 per year for a $2M 10-year term policy.  So the same amount of term life insurance costs only $110,000.  Much less than the $430k in opportunity cost that the whole life would cost you. In addition, you have a mortgage that's costing you about $28K per year now (3.5% of 800,000). Why would you ""invest"" in a 1.7% insurance policy when you are paying a ""low"" 3.5% mortgage? I would take as much cash as you are comfortable with and pay down the mortgage as much as possible, and get it paid off quickly. Then you don't need life insurance.  Then you can do whatever you want.  Retire early, invest and give like crazy, travel the world, whatever.   I see no compelling reason to have life insurance at all, let alone life insurance wrapped in a bad investment vehicle."
"They are overpriced to begin with.  One reason is the fact that they are luxury cars.  A second, related reason, is that they tend to push the technology envelope.   All cars depreciate drastically the minute they are driven off the lot.  This a good argument for buying a car that is 1-2 years old.  The higher you are, the more you can fall.   Repairs and maintenance are typically still expensive on these cars, due to relative rarity and the lack of necessary expertise.  Here is where that advanced technology bites you.  This is a reason that a 5 year old Civic may be worth more than than a 10 year old Benz.  It may simply not be worth the hassle of maintaining/repairing a luxury car.  This is especially true for an aging luxury car.  There are some people that only buy domestic, precisely because of the maintenance costs.  Also, a 10 year old car is still a 10 year old car, regardless of the make.  (There are a few notable exceptions, like the NSX.) Hondas and Toyotas have a great reputation for reliability and (long-term) total cost of ownership. ""Better"" is a subjective issue, that depends on a variety of variables.  A Civic is certainly not better in terms of technology, comfort, etc.  But, it is likely better in terms of maintenance, reliability, etc.  Which ""better"" you focus on, is up to you."
If you are using T-mobile you don't have to put $100 in each year to keep your minutes for a year.  Once you spend $100 you get a year with any additional minutes you buy.  Buying them $100 at a time is the cheapest way - but when you renew you can renew with only $50 or $30 and you have a year to use them from the last time you bought. I did this this year - only put $50 on each phone because we don't use $100 worth in a year.
There is Free employer money on both sides of the tax fence for some employees.   On the pretax side, your employer may provide you a match.  If so, invest the maximum to get 100% of the match.   On the after tax side, many companies offers a 15% discount on ESPP plans and a one year hold.  My wife has such an employer.  The one year hold is fine because it allows us to be taxed at Long Term Capital gains if the stock goes up which is lower than our current income bracket.  After creating a seasoned pool of stocks that we could sell after the one year hold, we are then able to sell the same number of stocks purchased each month.  This provides a 17.6% guaranteed gain on a monthly basis.  How much would you purchase if you had a guaranteed 17.6% return.  Our answer is 15% (our maximum allowed). The other trick is that while the employer is collecting the money, you will purchase the stock at the lowest day of the period.  You will usually sell for even more than the purchase price unless the day purchased was the lowest day of month.   The trick is to reinvest the money in tax free investments to balance out the pretax investing.  Never leave the money in the plan.  That is too much risk.
we have 5 customers already lined up, and like 15 who are very interested in our service. So like I said, we definitely dont need sales for the next 6 months, probably not for a year. which is great.
Here's an answer copied from  https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-second-quarter-of-estimated-quarterly-taxes-only-two-months Estimated taxes used to be paid based on a calendar quarter, but in   the 60's the Oct due date was moved back to Sept to pull the third   quarter cash receipts into the previous federal budget year which   begins on Oct 1 every year, allowing the federal government to begin   the year with a current influx of cash. That left an extra month that   had to be accounted for in the schedule somewhere.  Since individuals   and most businesses report taxes on a calendar year, the fourth   quarter needed to continue to end on Dec 31 which meant the Jan 15 due   date could not be changed, that left April and July 15 dues dates that   could change.  April 15 was already widely known as the tax deadline,   so the logical choice was the second quarter which had its due date   changed from July 15 to June 15.
When you pay monthly, you're making 12 payments / year. Assuming you have a payment of $1000/mo, that's $12,000/year that you're paying for your mortgage. When you opt for bi-weekly, they're saying that you can pay half of your mortgage ($500) bi-weekly (can be configured to align with your paycheck). Since there are ~26 bi-weekly periods in a year, you're making 26 * $500 = $13,000 in mortgage payments each year. Some of these companies charge a fee for you to utilize this service. The main concept behind this is that people are horrible at budgeting on their own, so when $500 is immediately taken from your paycheck, you'll be able to budget around what's left and be able to make that extra payment each year without thinking about it or realizing it.
Interest rates are always given annually, to make them comparable. If you prefer to calculate the rate or the total interest for the complete time, like 10 years or 15 years or 30 years, it is simple math, and it tells you the total you will pay, but it is not helpful for picking the better or even the right offer for your situation. Compare it to your car's gas mileage- what sense does it make to provide the information that a car will use 5000 gallons of gas over its lifetime? Is that better than a car that uses 6000 gallons (but may live 2 years longer?)
"Home equity loan is a kind of a mortgage loan. So you're basically asking ""what's better: mortgage or mortgage?"". Home equity loan is usually taken as a second mortgage on the house, while you're still paying the initial one, but accumulated some equity in the property. In the scenario you're describing, there's no ""second mortgage"", there's only one mortgage. You can call it ""The wonderful glorious bestest ever mortgage"" or you can call it ""home equity mortgage"", and it would make no difference to the essence. Look at the numbers, and decide which terms are better, not which name sounds nicer to you."
I can't see how. Portland raised their minimum wage by 50 cents a year ago ($9.25 to $9.50), which is probably not enough to drown any restaurants that aren't already in trouble. The plan for $15 minimum wage is a gradual increase over 5 years.   The next increase will come July 1st, as far as I can tell. That will be the one to watch.
the problem for millenials, is that even if the economy DOES return in a few years, they will largely looked over in favor of the fresher generation Z [or whatever it is called] graduates.  Why hire a 30 year old with no professional experience when you can hire a brand new graduate with no professional experience?
AUD is not a great choice as it has nowhere to go against USD but down. Take a look at the 5 year graph http://au.finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=AUDUSD=X&amp;t=5y&amp;l=on&amp;z=l&amp;q=l&amp;c=  Most in Australia predict that it will eventually hover around 0.8, at which point you would have lost almost 20% of your savings.  Another thing is that savings interest is taxed in Australia, so take that rate with a grain of salt. For a typical household that would be a 30% tax, at which point it is just in line with inflation, so real term growth is nil.
There was a study last year -- it was all over the news -- that concluded that experiences, not stuff, is what makes people happy. The satisfaction from going on vacation lasts even after the holiday is long over. That new gadget only gives fleeting satisfaction. To that end, I recommend splurging on the affordable luxuries that give you a better experience. For example, I'm a big believer in paying the skycap a few dollars to check my bags at the curb rather than wait in line at the airport because I HATE airports. Valet parking is another affordable luxury when the alternative is circling a busy parking lot for 15 minutes. Pay for the better seats at the show. Get a room at the nicer hotel. Eat out a bit more often. I can't imagine willingly spending hours with customer support, though. They can have my $5.
"The crazy thing about this is that $30 million in annual salary and compensation really isn't the end of the story for rich guys.  I worked for a REIT a few years back and the guy that founded that REIT made a few million in salary a year.  I thought the number seemed a bit low for his lifestyle.  He had many properties in the US for his own personal use (around 6-8 BIG homes).  He also had a garage that was insane.  He had over 25 very expensive cars.  My co-workers would say ""Nick is airing out his garage"" when he drove one to work every day for a month without driving the same vehicle twice in one month.  It turns out he owned 30 million shares of stock that paid him $1.00 per share per year.  So while his annual compensation was ""only"" a few million per year, his dividend income was many, many, times that.  Think about that next time you see a CEO's annual income and you think that it really isn't as much as you expect."
Your logic is not wrong.  But the risk is more significant than you seem to assume.  Essentially you are proposing taking a 2.6% loan to buy stocks. Is that a good strategy?  On average, probably.  But if your stocks crash you might have significant liabilities. In 1929, the Dow Jones dropped 89%.  In 1989, >30%.  In 2008-9, 54%.  This is a huge risk if this is money that you owe in taxes.  If you operate the same system year after year the chance of it going horribly wrong increases.
This chart showing percentage of smartphone market by operating system is interesting:  https://www.statista.com/statistics/266136/global-market-share-held-by-smartphone-operating-systems/  It shows that Apple has a cyclical trend where the percentage of smartphones sold by Apple peaks in the 4th quarter of every year at around 20% and then gradually goes down to around 15% in the 3rd quarter of each year.  Apple basically survives on a fad-like cycle very similar to automobiles where a new model overcomes the price difference with primarily android phones to create a surge of buyers each year around Christmas.
In one fell swoop, you just reduced your monthly payment from $60 to $5.25. Per year, this means $720 to $63, so on the $7,000 ""invested"" in repayment you get $657 in return every year for a 9.4% annual return on investment. It will take you about 11 years to use only this money to save another $7,000, as opposed to the 30 years original repayment schedule. If the extra payment goes toward knocking time off the existing repayment schedule but keeping the amount paid toward the principal per month the same, you are now paying $33 toward the principal plus $2.50 interest against the $1,000 loan, which means by paying $35.50/month you will be debt free in 30 months: two and a half years, instead of 30 years, an effective 92% reduction in repayment time. You immediately have another about $25/month in your budget, and in two and a half years you will have $60 per month that you wouldn't have if you stuck with the original repayment schedule. If instead the total amount paid remains the same, you are then paying about $57.50/month toward the principal and will be debt free in less than a year and a half. Not too shabby, if you ask me. Also, don't forget that this is a known, guaranteed return in that you know what you would be paying in interest if you didn't do this, and you know what you will be paying in interest if you do this. Even if the interest rate is variable, you can calculate this to a reasonable degree of certainty. The difference between those two is your return on investment. Compare this to the fact that while an investment in the S&P might have similar returns over long periods of time, the stock market is much more volatile in the shorter term (as the past two decades have so eloquently demonstrated). It doesn't do you much good if an investment returns 10% per year over 30 years, if when you need the money it's down 30% because you bought at a local peak and have held the investment for only a year.
"&gt; The longer you are unemployed, the less likely companies want to hire you, it's a vicious circle.  This circle is even more vicious when you're older. When you're under 30, you can still write off that time as ""you were trying to find your passion."" When you're 45 with kids, a year being unemployed is like 5 years of unemployment for a 28 year old. Employers really wonder."