vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Except history in this country has already shown us that the rich can in fact be taxed significantly higher than they are now and they don't all run and hide their money.  So instead of Mieses' book we could actually study the people who already didn't do the things you claim they'd all do. So no, it in fact will not answer a lot of things better than research of actual data will.
The instructions confirm that this should be the amount that you received listed on the 1099-MISC. Report on line 4 royalties from oil, gas, or mineral properties (not including operating interests); copyrights; and patents. Use a separate column (A, B, or C) for each royalty property. If you received $10 or more in royalties during 2016, the payer should send you a Form 1099-MISC or similar statement by January 31, 2017, showing the amount you received. Report this amount on line 4. I don't think that there's any relevant Expenses deductions you could take on the subsequent lines (though like I said, I've not used this form before), but if you had some specific expenses involved in producing this income it might be worth looking into further. On Line 21 you'd subtract the 0 expenses (or subtract any expenses you do manage to list) and put the total. It looks like there are more totals to accumulate on lines 23 and 24, which presumably would be equally easy as you only have the one property. Put the total again on line 26, which says to enter it on the main Form 1040 on line 17 and it thus gets included in your income."
On line 21 of Schedule D, you write the smaller of So, in your case, since your Line 16 shows a loss of more than $3000 on Line 21, you write 3000 on Line 21 (the parentheses indicating that is it a negative number are already included on the form). Also, you write (3000) on Form 1040 Line 13. The rest of the loss is a carryover to next year (be sure to fill out the Capital Loss Carryover Worksheet where the carryover to next year is computed). Summary: you cannot write 0 on Line 21 of Schedule D and carry over the entire loss to next year. You must deduct $3000 this year and carry over the rest of the loss to next year.
Sure:  http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/YourMoney/story?id=129651 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK50972/ cbo.gov and a dozen other sources are just one short google search away.  That's true. Then I guess we should start charging fees for their use instead of taxes for police and courts. Fine by me.  Mandatory public healthcare can't be financed without introducing excessively progressive tax rates for a more wealthy minority. We agree on the subsidies though.
Well that and using it for criminal enterprise, but unless you're running a meth lab in your half-million-dollar home or financing it with coke money I wouldn't worry about that score. Retirement planners figure property taxes into cost of living, and they do often advise a downgrade from the 2-story house you raised your children in to something smaller (for many reasons, including lower taxes). There really isn't a way to structure a completely ""pay-as-you-go"" metropolitan area, and you wouldn't want to live in it if there were. Imagine every strip of asphalt in the county being a toll road where your transponder (TollTag, EZ-Pass, etc) or license plate was scanned and you were billed at each intersection. In addition to being a huge invasion of privacy, the cost to maintain this network (and your cost to use it) would skyrocket. Imagine 911 asking for a credit card number before dispatching police, fire or EMS (Ambulance services already do bill on a per-event basis, but you'd be surprised how few people pay and how little power a county EMS has to enforce collection; without a property tax and Medicaid to cover the difference, EMS service could not be provided in most counties)."
"The statement can be true, but isn't a general rule. Crashes and recessions are two different things. A crash is when the market rapidly revalues something when prices are out of equilibrium, whether it be stocks, a commodity or even a service.  When the internet was new, nobody knew how to design webpages, so web page designers were in huge demand and commanded insane price premiums. I literally had college classmates billing real companies $200+/hr for marginal web skills. Eventually, the market ""clued up"" and that industry collapsed overnight. Another example of a crash from the supply point of view was the discovery of silver in the western US during the 19th century -- these discoveries increased the supply of the commodity to the point that silver coin eroded in value and devastated small family farms, who mostly dealt in silver currency. Recessions are often linked to crashes, but you don't need a crash to have a recession. Basically, during a recession, trade and industrial activity drop. The economy operates in cycles, and the euphoria and over-optimistic projections of a growing or booming economy lead to periods of reduced growth where the economy essentially reorganizes itself. Capital is a (if not the) key element of the economic cycle -- it's a catalyst that makes things happen. Debt is one form of capital -- it's not good, not bad. Generally cheap capital (ie. low interest rates) bring economic growth. Why? If I can borrow at 4%, I can then perform some sort of economic activity (bake bread, make computers, assemble cars, etc) that will earn myself 6, 8 or 10% on the dollar. When interest rates go up, economic activity slows, because the higher cost of credit increases the risk of losing money on an investment. The downside of cheap capital is that risk taking gets too easy and you can run into situations like the $2M ranch houses in California. The downside of expensive/tight capital is that it gets harder for businesses to operate and economic activity slows down. The effects of either extreme cascade and snowball."
If you know the market will crash, you could opt for going short. However, if you think this is too risky, not investing at all is probably your best move. In case of crises, correlation go up and almost all assets go down.
"As you're saving up for an expenditure instead of investing for the long run, I would stay away from any sort of ""parking facility"" where you run the risk of not having the principal protected. The riskier investments that would potentially generate a bigger return also carry a bigger downside, ie you might not be able to get the money back that you put in. I'd shop around for a CD or a MMA/regular savings account with a half-decent interest rate. And yes, I'm aware that the return you might get is probably still less than inflation."
Swiss Central bank has a floor of 1.20, the reason why I have this pair is that my downside is limited.  The actual differential is about 20 bps but im leveraged 50:1, which gives me a fun 10% annualized. I bought in at 1.2002, meaning my max downside on an investment of 20K (gives 1mn of exposure), is 200$ and my potential profit is 2000. Creating a risk to return of 10:1.
First, accept the fact that you are not going to be able to predict the ups and downs of the market well enough for that to be a viable strategy. In the long run these schemes tend to be losers because it forces you to guess correctly twice (When to get out, when to get back in) and missing either date can cost you. A better strategy to benefit from market volatility:
I think a larger issue is that you're trying to do market timing. Whether you had a large or small amount of money to invest, no one wants to put the money in to watch it go down.  You can't really predict if prices in a market or security will go up in six months (in which case you want to put all your cash in now), of if it will go down (in which case you'd want to wait until the bottom), or if it will skitter around (in which case you'd want to only buy at the bottoms).  Of course, if you're magic enough to nail all of those market conditions, you're a master finance trader and will quickly make billions. If you're really concerned with protecting your money and want to take some long positions, I'd look into some put options. You'll of course pay the fees for those put options, but they'll protect your downside.  Much of this depends on your time horizon: at the age of 35, someone can expect to see ~6 more recessions and perhaps ~30 more market corrections before retirement. With that big of a time range, it's best to avoid micro-optimizing since that tends to hurt your performance overall (because you won't be able to time the market correctly most of the time).  One thing that's somewhat reasonable, if you have the stomach for it, is to not buy at somewhat-obvious market highs and wait for corrections. This isn't fool proof by any means, but as an example many people realized that US equities basically were on a ~5 year up run by December 2014. Many people cashed out those positions, expecting that a correction would be due. And around late summer of 2015, that correction came. For those with patience, they made ~15% with a few mouse clicks.  Of course many others would have been waiting for that correction since 2010 and missed out on the market increases.  Boiled down:
The fundamental issue with leverage (of any sort, really) is that the amplified downsides are extremely likely to more than cancel out amplified equivalent upsides. Example without using a major swing: 2x leverage on a 5% decline (so a 10% decline).  The 5% decline needs a 5.26% increase to get back level.  However, the 2x leverage needs an 5.55% increase to get back.  So a cycle for the unleveraged returns of -5%, +5.4% would see the unleveraged asset go up by a net +0.13% but 2x leverage would leave you at -0.28%.  Conversely, imagine 0.5x leverage (it's easy to do that: 50% cash allocation): after an underlying -5%, the 0.5x leverage needs only +5.13% to reach par.  This is basically the argument for low volatility funds. Of course, if you can leverage an asset that doesn't go down, then the leverage is great.  And for an asset with an overall positive compound return, a little leverage is probably not going to hurt, simply because there are likely to be enough upsides to cancel out downsides.
"Financing a portfolio with debt (on margin) leads to higher variance. That's the WHOLE POINT. Let's say it's 50-50.  On the downside, with 100% equity, you can never lose more than your whole equity. But if you have assets of 100, of which 50% is equity and 50% is debt, your losses can be greater than 50%, which is to say more than the value of your equity. The reverse is true. You can make money at TWICE the rate if the market goes up. But ""you pay your money and you take your chances"" (Punch, 1846)."
I've read a nice rule of thumb somewhere that you should consider: You should invest (100-YOURAGE)% of your money in stock The rest should be something less volatile and more liquid, so you have some money when the stock market goes down and you need some money nevertheless. So you would start with buying about 75% stock and balance your stock percentage over time by buing more secure assets to keep the stock percentage at the desired level. At some time you might need to  sell stock to rebalance and invest in more secure assets.
That depends on your portfolio allocation before and after averaging down and your investor profile (risk apettite). Take care when putting more money on a falling security, if your portfolio allocation shifts too much. That may expose you to risks you shouldn't be taking. You are assuming a risk for example, if the market bears down like 2008: Averaging down or doubling up works well when the stock eventually rebounds because it has the effect of magnifying gains, but if the stock continues to decline, losses are also magnified. In such cases, the investor may rue the decision to average down rather than either exiting the position or failing to add to the initial holding. One of the pitfalls of averaging down is when the security does not rebound, and you become too attached to be able to cut your losses and move on. Also if you are bullish on a position, be careful not to slip the I down and add a T on said position. Invest with your head, not your heart."
Buy puts on stock holdings buy puts on indexes  look at volatility etfs and silver/gold etf s. Calling a market top is hard people hVe tried for 8 years now.  90 of protection via options expires worthless.  Who knows if we have another crash. I don't call tops or bottoms if we start falling then I'll look at protection and play the downside
https://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc171009m.png  &gt;The following charts will provide a sense of where the U.S. equity market currently stands. The first chart shows our margin-adjusted CAPE, which as noted above has a correlation of about -0.89 with actual subsequent market returns across U.S. market cycles since the 1920’s.  https://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc171009.htm  It will turn, downside potential is historic.
There are some economic signs as there are in all economic and business cycles, such as interest rates rising. However, a more effective way is to actually look at price action itself. The definition of an uptrend is higher highs followed by higher lows. The definition of a downtrend is lower lows followed by lower highs. So if you are looking to invest for the long term you can look at the weekly or even the monthly chart of the market say over the past 10, 15 or 20 years. Using these definitions on say the S&P500 if the price continues to make higher highs and higher lows then stay in the market. If the price makes a lower high than the previous high, then this is a warning sign that the trend may be about to end. The trend has not broken yet but it is a warning sign that it could be ending soon. If the price makes a higher low next followed by a higher high, then the trend continues and you just need to keep an eye on things. If, however, the price makes a lower low after the lower high this is a signal that the uptrend is over and you should get out of the market. If the price makes a lower low directly after a higher high, then be cautious and wait for confirmation that the uptrend is over. If you then get a lower high this is confirmation that the uptrend is over, you would then sell if prices drop below the previous low. If you invest in individual shares then you should keep an eye on the charts for the index and individual shares as well. The index chart will give you an indication if the uptrend is over for the whole market, then you can be more cautious in regards to the individual shares. You can then plan exit points on each individual share if their trends are broken too. If you have stop losses employed and the trend reverses on the index, this would be a good time to tighten your stop losses on individual shares. You can then buy back into the market when you determine that the downtrend is broken and prices start to show higher highs and higher lows again.
"I think what you really want to look into is put options. You can essentially replicate the same thing, without worrying about margin calls. Check out this site http://www.fundamentalfinance.com/options/options-basic-charts.php a quick glance seems to show it to be pretty good.  The way you would limit downside risk is to buy a put option, allowing you to sell anytime within the next n months for the current price (assuming american). This will allow you to limit downside risk, however, potential profits do go down due to fees as another answer suggests this could be cost prohibitive. This type of strategy is also known as a ""protective put"". http://www.optionseducation.org/strategies_advanced_concepts/strategies/protective_put.html If you wanted to be more refined you could use Ak's bands, although you have to be looking for that specific outcome. Also due to complexity, this can become a taxing (in terms of time invested) and risky (if you are wrong) investment. Either way I think you need to study payoff curves a little more."
"As Dheer pointed out, the top ten mega-cap corporations account for a huge part (20%) of your ""S&P 500"" portfolio when weighted proportionally. This is one of the reasons why I have personally avoided the index-fund/etf craze -- I don't really need another mechanism to buy ExxonMobil, IBM and Wal-Mart on my behalf. I like the equal-weight concept -- if I'm investing in a broad sector (Large Cap companies), I want diversification across the entire sector and avoid concentration. The downside to this approach is that there will be more portfolio turnover (and expense), since you're holding more shares of the lower tranches of the index where companies are more apt to churn. (ie. #500 on the index gets replaced by an up and comer). So you're likely to have a higher expense ratio, which matters to many folks."
Like 90% of them pride themselves in making slightly positive returns at times of turmoil. They never mention their returns on up years (8 our of every 10, at a minimum). At times like this when markets are booming they underperform and it's what have you done for me lately time. They'll slightly rebound next downturn, but still terrible investments because of the fees. Even when you take into account the diversification effect of their negative betas.
"Assuming you are referring to macro corrections and crashes (as opposed to technical crashes like the ""flash crash"") -- It is certainly possible to sell stocks during a market drop -- by definition, the market is dropping not only because there are a larger number of sellers, but more importantly because there are a large number of transactions that are driving prices down. In fact, volumes are strongly correlated with volatility, so volumes are actually higher when the market is going down dramatically -- you can verify this on Yahoo or Google Finance (pick a liquid stock like SPY and look at 2008 vs recent years). That doesn't say anything about the kind of selling that occurs though. With respect to your question ""Whats the best strategy for selling stocks during a drop?"", it really depends on your objective. You can generally always sell at some price. That price will be worse during market crashes. Beyond the obvious fact that prices are declining, spreads in the market will be wider due to heightened volatility. Many people are forced to sell during crashes due to external and / or psychological pressures -- and sometimes selling is the right thing to do -- but the best strategy for long-term investors is often to just hold on."
If financial modelling, projections and market research were effective enough that they could predict with certainty what the price would do tomorrow, then everyone would use those techniques, buy now and make relatively risk-free profit tomorrow though, right? The point of an efficient market is that the price at any particular point in time incorporates all of the information available to the market at that moment. Given that, the price should be just as likely to go up tomorrow as go down.   Whether it's reasonable to assume that the market is efficient is another question - at the very least though, I think it's reasonable to assume that people armchair investing at home don't have access to information that professional investors don't.
This is the exactly wrong thing to do especially in the age of algorithmic trading.  Consider this event from 2010:  Chart Source  Another similar event occurred in 2015 and there was also a currency flash crash in that year. As you can see the S&P 500 (and basically the entire market) dropped nearly 7% in a matter of minutes.  It regained most of that value within 15 minutes. If you are tempted to think that 7% isn't that big of a deal, you need to understand that specific securities will have a much bigger drop during such events.  For example the PowerShares S&P 500 Low Volatility ETF (SPLV) was down 45% at one point on Aug 24, 2015 but closed less than 6% down. Consider what effect a stop loss order would have on your portfolio in that circumstance.  You would not be able to react fast enough to buy at the bottom.  The advantage of long-term investing is that you are immune to such aberrations. Additionally, as asked by others, what do you do once you've pulled out your money.  Do you wait for a big jump in the market and hop back in?  The risk here is that you are on the sidelines for the gains.  By missing out on just a small number of big days, you can really hurt your long-term returns.
"My question to you would be ""When is the market down?"" I know that a lot of people attempt to do this and never get close.   With 40 years left to retirement, I would have you consider to just invest in the manner that you are most comfortable and let dollar cost averaging do the rest."
"There isn't really a generic options strategy that gives you higher returns with lower risk than an equivalent non-options strategy. There are lots of options strategies that give you about the same returns with the same risk, but most of the time they are a lot more work and less tax-efficient than the non-options strategy. When I say ""generic"" I mean there may be strategies that rely on special situations (analysis of market inefficiencies or fundamentals on particular securities) that you could take advantage of, but you'd have to be extremely expert and spend a lot of time. A ""generic"" strategy would be a thing like ""write such-and-such sort of spreads"" without reference to the particular security or situation. As far as strategies that give you about the same risk/return, for example you can use options collars to create about the same effect as a balanced fund (Gateway Fund does this, Bridgeway Balanced does stuff like it I think); but you could also just use a balanced fund. You can use covered calls to make income on your stocks, but you of course lose some of the stock upside. You can use protective puts to protect downside, but they cost so much money that on average you lose money or make very little. You can invest cash plus a call option, which is equivalent to stock plus a protective put, i.e on average again you don't make much money. Options don't offer any free lunches not found elsewhere. Occasionally they are useful for tax reasons (for example to avoid selling something but avoid risk) or for technical reasons (for example a stock isn't available to short, but you can do something with options)."
&gt;Companies requesting unnecessary levels of qualification or experience and thus making it very difficult for young people to find work.  I've found this is often largely a screener to deter the more weak minded people from applying.
It will likely only increase as unemployment rises too.  Most companies which request degrees or unnecessary levels of experience generally do so as a way to filter out applications. As unemployment rises and the number of people applying for each job increases, I would imagine that will become more widespread.  Two things which reddit feels very passionately about (and understandably so) are:  1. Companies not paying a living wage.   2. Companies requesting unnecessary levels of qualification or experience and thus making it very difficult for young people to find work.   Unfortunately it seems like solving one of these problems will only exacerbate the other.
"We can also all sit back and bitch about how there are no jobs!  No one is willing to pay for services anymore because everything is  ""free""on the internet.  You have billions of dollars flowing to startups with &lt;100 employees.  Monetizing the internet outside of advertising would be a boon to the economy and jobs....people just can't see it.  If everyone paid for things, you know like pre-internet...we would probably have better quality stuff.  For example, News has suffered...laying off all the real journalists. Google would be forced to actually compete with companies vs. Giving everything away free.  That creates employment opportunities for other startups to compete in a fair environment vs. Trying to acquire millions of users on no revenue."