vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
&gt;This goes on until they simply drop dead. Substitute debt for alcohol and you have our situation exactly.  *Exactly.* It is well known that the US entered an unprecedented depression after its unprecedented borrowing during World War 2. It is all very simple and easily predicted.
In general, insurance is a net good for you when it covers catastrophic losses that you would otherwise be unable to properly pay for yourself. See more here: https://money.stackexchange.com/a/77570/44232. Of course, insurance is more valuable when the catastrophic event becomes more likely. The list of possible outcomes for this combination of expense + likelihood is below: 1) Unlikely event; minimal loss: Insurance has no value here; you will simply be giving money to the insurance company and never getting anything worthwhile in return. Example: insuring your car in Florida against hail damage. 2) Unlikely event; catastrophic loss: Insurance has some value; it is likely cheap to acquire due to unlikelihood of occurrence, and could reduce the possibility of unfortunate incidences from becoming life-altering. Example: insuring your car for an extra $1M liability insurance against possible medical expenses of those in an accident. 3) Likely event; minimal loss: Insurance has no value here - you will over the course of your life suffer many of these small losses, and by constantly paying insurance, you are on average losing money to the insurance companies. Example: insuring your toaster. 4) Likely event; catastrophic loss: While insurance would be valuable here, it is also going to be quite expensive. A better option may be to simply not participate in that activity. Example: insurance for participating in an unlicensed MMA fight. Your specific question refers to what I would classify as #2 above - an unlikely event, but a catastrophic loss. This implies that insurance may be worthwhile, depending on the price and payout. The price itself seems small in relation to the cost of a ticket, and the payout seems high in relation to the cost of the premium. But does the payout actually mean to you? It is perhaps not wise to consider life insurance as a 'windfall payment'. Instead, consider life insurance as coverage for the financial realities of death - funeral expenses, and perhaps money to provide grieving time for your family before they resume or take on work [Again, insurance is coverage against catastrophic loss, not a lottery ticket to provide a windfall when the unfortunate happens].
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.marketwatch.com/story/one-third-of-american-households-cant-afford-food-shelter-or-medical-care-2017-09-27) reduced by 63%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Nearly half of Americans have a tough time paying their bills, and over one-third have faced hardships such as running out of food, not being able to afford a place to live, or not having enough money to pay for medical treatment.  &gt; The State of the American Wallet shows how Americans are saddled with mounting car loan and credit card debt and not saving enough money - even enough to cover emergency expenses.  &gt; The survey included questions on whether respondents could &amp;quot;Enjoy life&amp;quot; because of the way they managed their money, and how often respondents had money left over at the end of the month.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/75tq9p/onethird_of_american_households_cant_afford_food/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~226611 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **survey**^#1 **American**^#2 **respondent**^#3 **money**^#4 **how**^#5"
qe is a wrong medicine - temporary patch or band.aid qe is phoney - it is just an easy money and definitely not a hard earned (labor generated) money. qe is a gamble - trillion dollars is at stake. if we are lucky the dying person or the economy will live. if we are not lucky the dying person will die, the economy will going to collapsed, and still we have to pay all the “debts” as long as we live. qe is domineering - the economy today is at the mercy of ""qe"". (the economy is captive, hostage by ""qe"") interest rates is a lose-lose situations. keeping it zero. the u.s.a. government will lose trillions and trillions of dollars, that is badly needed. now, raising this rates will surely and definitely starts the u.s.a. markets and precisely the world economy to react, pulling down the unstable economies of the whole world to jeopardy. now, which one would you like to choose? again, which one would you prefer? qe is trial and error - a complex, complicated solutions. healing one part of the body and the other part will swell and burst. qe is evaporation - (using taxpayers money) pension funds, retirement benefits and all entitlements is going to fade, will vanished in thin air. qe are waiters - simply waiting day and night for growth, for recovery. qe is thirstiness - it dries up the u.s.a. treasury. qe is debt - a never ending debt. keep in mind there is no such thing as unlimited debt or debt unlimited. don't be fooled. qe will going to keep you in good sleep - but will wake you up bankrupt. qe is not an answer - it is the culprit. qe is universal - it was copied all over the world (worldwide). qe is an absolute solutions (yes!!! for all dumb economists) - a 100percent “hopeless, desperate, solutions”.
One option is that the buyer brings cash and you together with the buyer go the bank where you have an account and deposit the money there - then the bank checks the cash and once the cash is accepted you no longer care if it was counterfeit. Once money is deposited you handle the keys.
I agree with Option 3 from the accepted answer (His/Hers/Joint), but with one caveat (that my wife and I are finding out). Once you have children, if your income is in the mid-range where you are not paycheck to paycheck, but are not floating in excess money either (ie, you can have a vacation, but you have to plan for it and save up for a few months to do so), the child-relative expenses begin to be a huge factor in your overall budget, such that (particularly if one partner does more of the child-related buying) it can be hard to really keep up the 3 account separation, because those child-related expenses may end up being all of one earner's paycheck. We originally did the 3 way split, where we took rent, car, and utilities from joint (ie, each transferred a reasonable portion to the joint account to cover), and just bought groceries each occasionally such that it was generally a reasonable split (as we both shopped for groceries and both earned close enough to each other that it worked out).  But once we had kids, it ended up being very different, and we eventually had to more properly budget all of our funds as if they were basically joint funds.  While we still do have separate accounts (and, largely, separate credit cards/etc., except for one joint card), it's almost pro forma now due to the kids.
Imagine someone is hammered and you predict they will have one hell of a hangover tomorrow.  Tomorrow comes, but instead of sobering up, they decided to drink even more.  So, you were wrong.  You predict again - now your hangover will be even worse.  Wrong again.  This goes on until they simply drop dead.  Substitute debt for alcohol and you have our situation exactly.   We have no tolerance for the pain associated with sobering up, nor do the politicians have any incentive to sell it to us.  By trying to eliminate the business cycle, we have destroyed ourselves.  The seeds were sown by Greenspan, and while it has been theoretically possible to alter our course, the political realities have made it impossible in practice.
You do know the ACA was modeled after both a Republican-introduced plan from the 90s as well as Mitt Romney's insurance reform plan for Massachusetts? If Democrats had their way, a public option (Medicaid or Medicare buy-in) would be available to those 10 mil who are feeling the squeeze.   And the state insuring health care for its citizens hardly seems like bread and circus. A healthier populace is more efficient and less costly in the long run.
If you are going to complain about US debt at least look at the budget. We spent roughly half the budget on defense+wars+intelligence and another half on Medical problems. Welfare, SS are no where near as significant. How the hell do these idiots expect to fix the budget if they ignore what constitutes more than 80% of it?
"&gt;JK. I have a job in engineering.  I was writing sarcastically as well (I didn't really think YOU were a barista).  But doubtless there ARE many PhD barista's out there (and, regardless of whether there doctoral degrees is *really* in ""underwater basket weaving"" or some other nonsensical inanity is pretty irrelevant and nonspecific, Lord knows there are plenty of worthless degrees being bought with dear effort {and huge debt-loads}, I know several people who were just so ""suckered"" by the academic scam).  &gt;Interesting article on the machinery. I can't count how many times I've had my coffee burned by those blasted humans.  Well, as I have advised several young people, just about every fad/fashion ""service"" job out there CAN (and inevitably will) be either automated, or is such a low-paying job that it isn't *worth* automating.   Instead I tell them to do their best to apprentice, train, or get schooling in some trade or profession that CANNOT be easily outsourced (plumbing, electrical work, etc); or which cannot easily be automated (dealing with mechanical things that require ""brain-power"" to diagnose, perfect, etc).  The other option of course -- is getting into some aspect of the ""death &amp; dying"" industry -- nursing homes, rehab hospitals, and of course funerals and such are going to be ""booming"" as the Baby Boomers age &amp; begin dying in the coming decade to three decades (and along a *very* predictable statistical/actuarial curve, give or take a year or two at most {probably take, as it appears Boomers are actually statistically LESS healthy than previous ""silent generation"" retirees})."
There is no benefit in life insurance as such (ie, death insurance.) There is a great deal of value in other types though: total and permanent disability insurance, trauma insurance (a lump sum for a major medical event), and income protection insurance (cover against a temporary but disabling medical condition).  If you don't have that, you should get it right now. This is about the most important insurance you can carry.  Being unable to work for the rest of your life has a far larger impact than having, say, your car stolen. ...  If, later on, you acquire dependents, and you feel you ought to have life insurance, then you will have a relationship with a life insurance company, and maybe they will let you upgrade from income/TPD to income/TPD/life without too much fuss or requalification.  Some do; whether yours would I don't know.  But at least you have a toe in the door with them, in a way that is infinitely more immediately useful than getting life insurance that you don't actually need.
To add to this, that risk is really only a problem if you don't have the cash flow to service the debt. If the surplus dips but your ultimately profitable on whatever trade you made, you're okay. If you default, you're not okay.  Volitility relative to loan term effectively.
"The editorial highlights some reasonable reforms-- consistent and transparent pricing--- and then seemingly takes a left turn. This concept or ""cutting out the middle man"" is a fantasy born of a time when local doctors provided affordable but limited care to a limited population. It's been a hollow talking point perpetuated by industry lobby in response to single-payer proposals. Keeping health care between patient and doctor doesn't address the key reasons why health insurance exists in the first place. The author suggests government-funded escrow accounts for those who can't afford the cost of healthcare. What about those just above the needs-tested cutoff? It seems that this approach disregards and therefore punishes the middle class. Must those with chronic illness become indigent before the government will assist in their care? The point of insurance is that when you get sick, you aren't left spending your life savings on medical care. Level and transparent pricing doesn't change the fact that certain treatments are still going to be expensive. The auto insurance comparison always frustrates me because people are not cars. If your car is breaking down every 30 miles, you can take out a loan and get a new car. A new body, not so much. Furthermore, every auto insurance claim raises your premium. All of this amounts to a tax on sick people. Single payer or even Medicaid for all (who want it) means the government has enormous pool of patients (or consumers if you wish) with which to negotiate pricing. Do you really think St. XYZ Hospital is going to cut you, an individual, a deal for no reason? Where is the leverage? Particularly in the case of emergencies? It isn't perfect, but politicizing and misconstruing the tragic case of a brain-dead infant does not strengthen your argument. Charlie Gard's case was not a matter of death panels; it was a matter of heartbroken parents in denial that their children was not going to get better. It's indeed an ethical quandary and no doubt a tragedy, but the hopelessness of the situation was not dictated by a heartless government but by health care professionals.
While stealing the identities of the deceased for claiming their social security benefits and so on is not new, this is the first I'd heard of someone stealing identities for the purpose of going after their tax refunds. I'd think it wouldn't be that worthwhile, considering the punishment likely if you get caught.
This article is a piece of dog shit full of selective information. Coal is already dead because of natural gas, you don't even have to consider renewables yet (which are very soon to be the most economically sound energy generation option as prices are dropping hand over fist).
Your first step should be to visit with the financial aid office of the university that you are considering attending, perhaps even before filling out the FAFSA. You may be eligible for grants, scholarships, and subsidized loans, as well as unsubsidized loans. You should pursue the first two options first, and then when you know how much remains to be financed, we can evaluate which of your investments you might liquidate if further financing is needed. There are a range of views on debt on this board. I take a very cautious approach to going in to debt. I worked full-time and took night classes to finish my degree without debt, but depending on your program that might not be an option. It seems that you also have a healthy relationship with debt considering the shape of your savings and finances as outlined above. Apart from the above information about how much money could be obtained and at what interest rates, the other missing information is your current salary, and your expected salary range after completing the program. With all of that information I could make specific recommendations, but at this point, my only recommendation is to avoid liquidating any retirement accounts in your effort to invest in yourself if at all possible.
"Adam Davis's answer is pretty good. However, I think he misses something with regard to the costs of a funeral. According to funeralplanning101.com, a traditional funeral can cost upwards of $15,000. Having just planned and paid for a funeral for an adult, I can assure you that this figure is low. I've heard ""$10,000 - $30,000"", and that seems a reasonable ball-park given my experience. Additionally, grief affects people differently. If your child died, would you be able to continue work afterwards? Most people can, but some people have to take extended leave (generally with no income) because of the emotional impact. Combined, these expenses can easily outstrip the savings for an average family. Almost by definition, insurance is not cost-effective; insurance companies profit by selling it to you, after all. But you may decide that it is appropriate to mitigate your risk by buying insurance. I do not have children and would likely not choose to insure them if I did. Nevertheless, other people may reasonably choose differently."
This isn't the movies. Killing someone's family to pressure them into DOING something for you is one thing, but that tactic doesn't work when you're trying to get someone to give you something they don't have. Let's say they kill his daughter or brother or parents, what then? How is he going to magically raise $3M? Go to a bank? Ask a friend? Tell the police? (btw, I find it interesting that his partner in that company was a police chief). It's not like he had the money but was just hiding it either. He simply had no way of paying, and they knew it, they probably worked with him for a while to get paid back and he couldn't get it done (maybe even tried gambling as the last option). Some other loan shark sure as hell isn't going to give you a loan to cover the loan you already can't pay back. They basically got fed up and decided to punish him by taking his life.  Keep in mind him being killed bc of debt is purely my suspicion. It could've just been some random murder, Phili isn't the safest of places.
You can withdraw the contributions you made to Roth IRA tax free. Any withdrawals from Roth IRA count first towards the contributions, then conversions, and only then towards the gains which are taxable. You can also withdraw up to $10000 of the taxable portion penalty free (from either the Traditional IRA or the Roth IRA, or the combination of both) if it is applied towards the purchase of your first primary residence (i.e.: you don't own a place yet, and you're buying your first home, which will become your primary residence). That said, however, I cannot see how you can buy a $250K house. You didn't say anything about your income, but just the cash needed for the down-payment will essentially leave you naked and broke. Consider what happens if you have an emergency, out of a job for a couple of months, or something else of that kind. It is generally advised to have enough cash liquid savings to keep you afloat for at least half a year (including mortgage payments, necessities and whatever expenses you need to spend to get back on track - job searching, medical, moving, etc). It doesn't look like you're anywhere near that. Remember, many bankruptcies are happening because of the cash-flow problem, not the actual ability to repay debts on the long run.
"Firstly (and this part is rather opinion-based) I would absolutely not think of making more pension contributions when you are currently totaling 6% of salary as ""over contributing"". There are some who argue that you should be putting a minimum of 20% away for retirement throughout your working life; you don't say how old you are / how close to retirement you are, but a common rule of thumb is to halve your age and put away that % of your salary into your pension. So I would certainly start with upping those contributions.  I actually don't think it makes much difference whether you go for just your workplace pension versus a separate private one - in general you end up paying management fees that are a % of the value, so whether it is in one place or split doesn't cost any less. The ""all eggs in one basket"" syndrome is a possible argument but equally if you change jobs a few times and end up with half a dozen pension pots it can be very hard to stay on top of them all. If you end up with everything in one pot and then transfer it when you change jobs, it's easier to manage. Other options:   ISA as you mentioned; on the plus side these are tax free. On the minus side, you can either go for a cash ISA which at the moment has very low rates of return, and/or a stocks and shares ISA which exposes you to risks in the stock market.   If you have debt, consider paying it off early / overpaying. Student loans may or may not be the exception to this depending on your personal situation. Certainly if you have a mortgage you can save a vast amount by overpaying early.   Other investments - stocks and shares, BTL housing, fine wines, Bitcoin, there are almost limitless possibilities. But it makes sense to max out the tax-efficient options before you look into these."
If you have not already hired another caterer, potentially your best solution might be to try and work out something with these folks. Presuming of course that they still have access to their equipment, dishware, etc, and to the extent that what you have paid might cover their labor, equipment use etc there might be some way for them to provide the services you have paid for, if you pay for materials such as the food itself directly . This presumes of course that it's only the IRS that they stiffed, and have not had most of their (material) capital assets repossessed or seized.  and you still trusted them enough to work out something. Otherwise as Duff points out you will likely need to file a small claims lawsuit and get in line with any other creditors.
It should have been buried with a stake through the coffin. However, it is very much still a standard for us. The point being that if you have access to Excel, you normally can find your way to VBA. We don't have the ability to drop into something sensible like Python or Java without a full Dev environment which they don't like in production.
Data is a funny thing. There are many different ways of constructing data sets. Keep in mind, the cite you linked is fine, I follow this kind of site when I am data mining. They got their data from the Government, and there's no reason to doubt its validity. Keep in mind, it's a survey. They extrapolate from a survey of a small population - In the 2016 survey, 6,254 families were interviewed, and in the 2013 survey, 6,026 were interviewed. 1) Let's set that aside, and look at the numbers as if they were gospel. $10.37M net worth to be top 1%. That's people at all different ages, and not the wealth cutoff for those dying, else the estate tax would hit closer to the 1%. Given the limited data set, I'd only hypothesize, if we graphed the age (along the bottom, X axis) vs number of people, the curve would peek in mid to late 60's, as people retire. With 20 years for the couple to spend and gift, it's not tough to imagine that by the time they pass away, the taxable estate $11M couple falls to just .2%. 2) When the estate tax impacted estates over just $600K, and my daughter was born, we set up a trust. Out net worth was barely positive, but insurance alone would have created enough wealth to have our orphaned child be subject to the tax of our estate before she received a dime. We also used the trust to fund her college. As a completed gift, had we made some bad decisions and lost it all, at least that money would be protected. Keep in mind, there are different flavors of trusts, but it's safe to say that in a survey to collect data, the million dollar+ trusts are considered family wealth. Not tough to imagine a good fraction of those families over $10M have a nice chunk already protected this way. 3) Last - For any illiquid assets, there's a discount that gets applied, typically 30%.
By placing the property in her name, her share of it would also be considered an asset of hers should she ever be sued. If she gets married and later divorced, depending on if Michigan is a community property state or not (and a lot of other things), her ex might get 50% of her stake in the property.