vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
I'll summarize here our discussion in the comments. First thing to remember is that you can only deposit up to $6K/year into the Roth IRA, you cannot seed it with some large amount (unless its a rollover). Second thing to remember is that you can only qualify 10K distribution for the home purchase. With that in mind, it seems that you'll have to have extremly high returns to make use of the maximum tax benefit (15-20% of the 10K). Non-qualified distributions will be taxed at ordinary income rates + 10% penalty, so if you can't qualify the distribution, instead of saving money on taxes, you'll end up paying twice as much as you would have without the IRA. Also, keep in mind that reporting of the distributions and justifying the qualifications might require assistance of a tax preparer, which will also reduce your savings. Bottom line, IMHO, you'll end up with a wash or very insignificant savings (compared to the magnitude of the home purchase costs) at best, which renders the whole thing kindof wastefull.
Like the other answers, I'm not entirely sure the equivalent exists in your country. But in the US there are thrift stores run by charities like GoodWill or the Salvation Army that sell clothes for very little money.  When my wife was in a similar situation very early in her career she learned the trick of driving to thrift stores nearest to the richest neighborhoods in town. She often found high dollar designer clothes that had been worn once (to an event or party) and then donated. Apparently it is quite gauche for the well-to-do to be caught dead in the same outfit twice. It wasn't uncommon for her to find clothes/shoes that retailed for hundreds of dollars for $10 or so.
To be safe you should donate the printer to the charity. Or even better, have the charity purchase it and you donate a equivalent number of dollars directed towards purchasing the equipment. Once your wife no longer volunteers with the charity it should be returned to the charity because they own it.
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-bodies-brokers/) reduced by 98%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Few state laws provide any oversight whatsoever, and almost anyone, regardless of expertise, can dissect and sell human body parts.  &gt; &amp;quot;There is a big market for dead bodies,&amp;quot; said Ray Madoff, a Boston College Law School professor who studies how U.S. laws treat the dead. &amp;quot;We know very little about who is acquiring these bodies and what they are doing with them.""  &gt; Generally, a broker can sell a donated human body for about $3,000 to $5,000, though prices sometimes top $10,000.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/78gdhw/each_year_thousands_of_americans_donate_their/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~234179 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*: **body**^#1 **broker**^#2 **part**^#3 **state**^#4 **funeral**^#5"
&gt; Start a funeral home or casket/urn selling company -- profit off of the death of the Boomers.  The problem is that the Boomers will only start dying when GenX starts retiring. While your advice made me chuckle, it is better directed at Millenials. :)
I read the article.  They've shut down foia requests with the recent updated foia legislation, the guy says that big business owners will slander them in the news if they publish anything on them,  try to sue them, insurance companies won't insure them, wealthy people won't donate.  Essentially is you go after big corporate power you get shut down.   Edit: I am for it.
"Paying someone to look after your money always costs something - it doesn't matter whether you're inside a pension or not. Fees are highest for ""actively managed"" funds and lowest for passively managed funds or things where you choose the investments directly - but in the latter case you might pay out a lot in dealing fees. Typically pensions will have some small additional costs on top of that, but those are hugely outweighed by the tax advantages - payments into a pension are made from gross salary (subject to an annual limit), and growth inside the pension is tax free. You do pay income tax when you take the money out though - but by then your marginal tax rate may well have dropped. If you want to control your own investments within a pension you can do this, subject to choosing the right provider - you don't have to be invested in the stockmarket at all (my own pension isn't at the moment). I wrote an answer to another question a while ago which briefly summarises the options As far as an annuity goes, it's not as simple as the company taking the money you saved when you die. The point of an annuity is that you can't predict when you'll die. Simplifying massively, suppose the average life expectancy when you retire is 20 years and you have 100K saved, and ignore inflation and interest for now. Then on average you should have 5K/year available - but since you don't know when you'll die if you just spend your money at that rate you might run out after 20 years but still be alive needing money. Annuities provide a way of pooling that risk - in exchange for losing what's left if you die ""early"", you keep getting paid beyond what you put in if you die ""late"". Your suggestion of taking the dividends from an index tracker fund - or indeed the income from any other investment - is fine, but the income will be substantially less than an annuity bought with the same money because you won't be using up any capital, whereas an annuity implicitly does that. Depending on the type of investment, it might also be substantially more risky. Overall, you only need to secure the income you actually need/want to live on.
Vick was proven guilty by a court of law as opposed to an organization with its own prerogatives. This leads me to believe he can overcome this.  Unfortunately, his ban is going to stay, but his name recognition associated with his accomplishments and charity work will too.
Generally, the beneficiary for AD&D is only paid in the event of an accidental death.  In the event of dismemberment the insured is paid not the beneficiary.  You're specifying the beneficiary for the death benefit.
"Hanging up is easy, whether it be charities or telemarketers: ""Sorry. I'm giving to other charities and am not interested in donating at this time. Bye. No, seriously, I know there are starving puppies, bye."" *hang up* You're probably trying to be polite and inoffensive by not interrupting and listening to the pitch, but you're not doing them a favor by listening for longer if you're not interested in paying up. Assuaging your guilt is another matter I can't address here."
"In the United States, yes it will generally cover suicide. However there is usually a ""suicide clause"":  Usually, this clause states that no death benefit will be paid if the   insured commits suicide within two years of taking out a policy. Whenever an insured person replaces an existing life insurance policy   with a new one, the time clock for the suicide clause is set back to   zero and starts over again. It also depends on the policy, state, etc."
It doesn't make any financial sense for you personally, because the impact on the debt would be so little it would have no significant benefit to you, and you'd be out the money you donated.
"&gt;The problem is that the Boomers will only start dying when GenX starts retiring.  Ah, but the key there is when GenX **starts** retiring (meaning when the OLDEST GenX'ers hit retirement age).  The younger GenX'ers will still be in the prime of their life (late 40's and 50's -- and so certainly able to own/operate the funeral homes, casket &amp; urn manufacturing operations, etc -- especially those who finally inherit their ""Silent Generation"" parents assets/savings).  &gt;While your advice made me chuckle, it is better directed at Millenials. :)  The GenY Millenials will certainly have the *opportunity* to benefit, but (especially the younger ones -- yet to reach adulthood) will likely be the ""menial"" labor of the Boomer ""death/dying\* boom"" (but as I have said in other places, they can probably pretty easily demand HIGH wages for said menial labor, because the demand will outweigh the supply -- thus the accumulated ""assets"" of the Boomers will {one way or another} be transferred to GenX &amp; GenY, even if it is a bit belatedly and perforce).  ;-)  \*It's not limited to the funeral part, there's gonna be BIG BUSINESS in things like nursing homes, and a high demand (and thus high wages) for bedpan changers, and sponge-bath givers, etc. (at least if the boomers want to be RESPECTFULLY treated by their sponge-bath givers... they will learn to ""tip"" with $100 bills for having their crack ""properly"" wiped, those who don't {or can't} tip will be left to ""stew"" in their own juices so to speak)."
We are the second most charitable country on the planet (source: world giving index), if Granny can't find support, she isn't really looking. The support is there for those genuinely in need. And, the money goes further because it doesn't have to pay bureaucrat salaries.
Just saw him on pbs this week saying that 99% of his wealth will be sold, liquidated, within 10 years of his and his spouse's death.  He probably is getting tax breaks but I imagine the koch brothers get similar breaks while actively fighting to get rid of the estate tax to pass all of their wealth on not just most of it.
"Any business, like any household, has items that are wasted. Unlike a household, a business does keep track of all items that are unsellable. Depending on the reason for the item being unsellable they are accounted for differently. Items that can be returned to the manufacturer are done so, and the business is given credit for that item. For the business the time spent processing, stocking and restocking that item, plus any time spent handling a return for that customer is harder to track. If they see the percentage of bad items is too large compared to sales they will want to address this with the manufacturer. Items that are spoiled by the business, which will include spoiled food items, will also be tracked. They will examine their choice of products, their procedures for those products and the quantities produced to try an minimize the spoilage. They don't just throw the items away, they keep track of the exact items and their worth. When they have to dispose of meat that has reached their ""sell by"" date they will actually scan the items into the computer.  In some cases products can be transformed into other products: bread into bread pudding; in other situations they are ""reduced for quick sale""; in other cases they are donated to a charity or food kitchen. All of this is also tracked. Of course any losses that the company can't recover by returning items to manufactures or repurposing will be reflected in the price of their items. Stores that can minimize their waste can offer lower prices."
"&gt;Yeah, that's what I meant when I said 'fellowships'... freemasons, oddfellows, that sort of thing...   Yup. I just wanted to elaborate on your comment, and make certain it didn't get dismissed as some ""religion only"" thing by some anti-religion ranters.  The plain truth is that when it came to *urban* areas there were at least as many secular ""fraternal order of _____"" (be it ""elks"" or ""buffaloes"" or whatever) societies.  &gt;the sort of orders that inevitably get labelled as part of a conspiracy to take over the world by christians whenever they realize church attendance is down.  But at the same time, whenever anyone nowadays suggests that ""private charity"" can take care of anything, those organizations get lumped in with and lost in the ""anti-religion"" (and more specifically the anti-church, anti-christian) aspect by people who seem to think the only possible ways for ""charity"" to exist are either via work/unions, or via business/rich folks (""philanthropy"") or via religion (and thus religious tyranny) or via government &amp; taxes (and thus bureaucratic/political tyranny).  Few people REALLY understand that the vast majority of ""charity"" was (back before ""welfare"") largely independent of all of those things -- just people who organized for common well-being."
I understand that. How about this then: charity begins at home. His warehouses have many faults, including lack of drinking water and people being penalised when they are ill. It's good that he'll give some of his fortune away to charity, absolutely. At the same time it's also bad that this money was earned at the expense of his employees welfare at a business that he runs and he has the power to improve.   People are being a bit too literal in this thread.
"Ah, I see what you mean, then.  But if you die at 57, being hit by a bus, those self-invested funds won't help the general social welfare of the union. Instead 1/3 would go to some estate tax, and the rest are left to the designated appointee of your choosing.   This soulless system helps the general populace a bit more directly.  That is the theory, anyways.  *edit: what I mean to say is, you still perceive that money as your own, like some compulsory retirement savings plan. I see it more as tax revenue,math little to no guarantee I will personally benefit from it directly any more than the general benefit it provides to This Great Union."""
"&gt; But yes, raising taxes will be necessary to fund what we need to fund, but I'd like to start with cutting government spending,  Want to cut government spending at the state level? Then you have to end the ""war on drugs"" and other excessibly punitive laws. But who has the political will to make that happen?"
"Another way to look at budgeting: give yourself an explicit ""allowance"" -- possibly in a separate account -- and if something isn't a clear necessity it must be paid for out of your allowance, saving up first if necessary. You can get those concert tickets, but only if you cut down on expensive meals and toys and other entertainment for a while. You can have anything you want, but not everything and not immediately unless you learn to maintain an adequate balance in this account."
As a tenured professor, has your SO done any grant or departmental budgeting? If so, perhaps you can ask how your SO managed that and can apply the same techniques to the household budget. If your SO plans to become Chair or move into administration,  budgets will be necessary.  Although this may frighten you SO and backfire,  you should also speak about what might happen if you become ill or otherwise unable to manage the finances.  Does your SO have any financially savvy friends or colleagues? A more independent voice may help.
As more people earn it, the value will dilute to some degree. However, I think for *some* parts of finance, the charter will retain usefulness. I mean, college degrees are *extremely* diluted, but they're still seen as a necessary requirement.  I see that happening for PM type of roles. Clearly anywhere it isn't useful now won't see appreciation in that later.
"The ends justify the means?  Do you even understand that phrase?  Obviously the end is our open-faced sandwiches.  So you're saying the means are...abuse?  ""Means"" must be something *necessary*.  Abuse is not a necessity.  The means are the things required to make the animal grow to an edible size.    Also, the ends can change.  In Korea, pet theft for food does occur.  By your logic, if someone stole your dog on Tuesday (when it would be morally reprehensible to abuse it) by Wednesday--when its end has been determined by the thieves as food--it's open season for beatings.  Same dog, but a different situation (which it had no say in, obviously) makes it OK to abuse.  Have fun with that argument in social situations.  Don't forget to bring up your defense of gall-bladder draining and, I'm assuming, gorilla poaching."
Well, I'm sorry that you're so thin-skinned. Here's a simple logical relation that I think absolutely holds true: hard work is neither necessary nor sufficient for success. It's certainly to be valued, but not as a form of cult worship.  There are so many people who are smarter, more tenacious and work harder than anyone you've ever known -- and they were cut down by malaria, murder, or a god damned piano falling on their heads. Them are the breaks. For every billionaire/famous person out there, there're at least 100 also-rans with analogous talent and prospects (at one point).  Chance rules us all, and it takes NOTHING away from the hard-working to admit that.
Yes, in order for a job to be allowed to exist the wages must be sufficient for the employee to buy a median priced home and support a family.  It's not possible some people may have different preferences, like fewer hours, lower wages, no skills requirements, and roommates. So, it should be illegal to create jobs that cater to those non-existent individuals.
&gt; Are you saying that if the industry was unregulated they would not do this?  No, I'm saying that people would probably do this regardless of the level of regulation.  &gt; It merely proves why regulation is necessary.  Except that regulation prohibiting this would be virtually unenforceable.
These videos are good from a historical perspective, but some salt needs to be taken with them. They push forward the idea that the economy must always be expanding due to interest charges, but that is essentially not true (if the bankers spend their interest earnings, then no expansion is necessary).
I'm afraid your best recourse may be legal. I don't know that internet is a necessity, but the court would frown upon anyone paying $4K for rent but not being able to afford to heat the water or turn the lights on. $48K a year net should be enough for her to at least keep the kids with these things.  I don't know that you can educate her. Her issue is very deep-seated and far beyond a good financial planning type session.
Do you satisfy the necessary criteria listed there? Then why not?... It sounds like you do.
Is it really necessary? If $800 / year registration fee is too much to you, an LLC is apparently not something you need right now. Many people conduct web-based business online on personal terms. My suggestion is that you focus on your business first and try to grow it as much as you can before you get down to a company.
&gt; Trump Says Debt Ceiling Is 'Not Necessary.' Is He Right?  Of course not! How could we live without an annual white-knuckle blame-fest to decide if we are going to pay for services we already ordered and received just to score political points?
H1B visas are a necessity if we wanna keep the US competitive. There's already a [physician shortage](https://news.aamc.org/press-releases/article/workforce_projections_03142017/) and if we want to keep the tech market in the States we should be encouraging workers to come here. Stopping the flow of high-skilled (desirable) workers means they'll be working somewhere else if not here meaning the next Uber, FB, or Reddit may not be in the US.
"The writer's ""you didn't build that"" rhetoric isn't necessary. Burger King has paid it's share of taxes that finance roads, copyright laws, and meat inspectors.  If BK owes the USA for its success,  then the other side of that argument is that all the millions of restaurants that failed should blame the USA."
This has been made clearly many times in this thread and others, and by myself. I refuse to go around in circles so I will not repeat myself after this: long term investors need to be able to liquidate their assets. Since long term investors by definition trade infrequently, short term speculators are NECESSARY to perform this function. Your argument at times has been that you don't need ULTRA short term speculators, and mine is that the ULTRA sort term speculators have not been shown to do anything negative to long term investors so banning them is reactionary. Short term speculators DO make money out of long term investors and that is by design - they are the very reason markets exist; otherwise people would stick to direct investment!
No, there is not a finite amount of work to be done, people have unlimited wants. Say we do fully automate all physical work, everyone could simply expand our human understanding, create art, play spectator sports, jobs that I can't even think of because there are not very important to us now but when more important concerns are met, these less important concerns, like art, become the most important.  Such as when you want food and water you don't care much for shelter, when you need shelter you don't care much about healthcare, when you need healthcare you don't worry about self actualization ect.  This reminds me of a story that france wanted to double the amount of jobs available so they made it illegal to work more then 20 hours a week. It failed because unemployment is not a result from insufficient work to be done. Not sure if true though.
"&gt; No conspiracy required. All you have to agree with is that having money makes it easier to make money and society will sort itself into classes that become further apart and harder to move between.  That wasn't the point of the article.  It stated that separation of classes was being actively orchestrated.  &gt;Those are important but exist in both rich and poor areas and it is a simple fact that you would get further with hard work and good parenting in a rich area than in a poor one.  Do you have anything to support your ""fact""?"
Everyone understands the necessity of those bailouts today. But I still contest that they were a net negative for the common man and a HUUUUUUUUUGE positive for the bank executives. In fact, the fallout from it - the conceptualisation of TBTF and GSIB etc - is basically a blank check for these banks. Oh yes, so many stringent regulations that we know for a fact that these banks will flout at the first opportunity available to them. And then, assuming it doesn't bring the global economy to its knees, someone will slap a billion dollar fine on them and let them go on their merry way.
After their residency, doctors aren't OVERWORKED, they just work hard, like most other professions, and don't have time to perform their own clinical studies to vet the medications that are provided for them to prescribe. No hospital/practice/doctor has time for that except maybe a very select few.  The only law against nurses that I'm aware of (I'm sure there are others so feel free to fill me in) is the one that requires that there be physician oversight for certain procedures, which makes sense because if doctors weren't necessary for anything except surgery, there would be no doctors except surgeons.  And the limit on medical schools is a fascinating point. I hadn't heard about that, and I think that it's quite bad for costs. The only upside is that it ensures that the quality of doctors stays as high as possible, but I can see how that comes at a serious cost.
"AI and robotics are going to destroy millions of jobs.  That's not necessary a bad thing. The human species should not want to spend eternity in agonizing menial labor over something as make-believe as ""money"".  If the cards are played right, eliminating menial jobs will be a good thing. It would mean easier and more luxurious lives for most people. Folks who are currently doing jobs which will be replaced such as commercial truck drivers, can learn new trades and/or be transitioned to different roles in their industry, preferably without starting over from nothing.  but it's going to happen, and it would be irresponsible to give menial laborers the impression that their jobs will still exist somehow."