vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"Whether you can establish an HSA has nothing to do with your employment status or your retirement plan. It has to do with the type of medical insurance you have. The insurance company should be able to tell you if your plan is ""HSA compatible"". To be HSA compatible, a plan must have a ""high deductible"" -- in 2014, $1250 for an individual plan or $2500 for a family plan. It must not cover any expenses before the deductible, that is, you cannot have any ""first dollar"" coverage for doctor's visits, prescription drug coverage, etc. (There are some exceptions for services considered ""preventive care"".) There are also limits on the out-of-pocket max. I think that's it, but the insurance company should know if their plans qualify or not. If you have a plan that is HSA compatible, but also have another plan that is not HSA compatible, then you don't qualify. And all that said ... If you are covered under your husband's medical insurance, and your husband already has an HSA, why do you want to open a second one? There's no gain. There is a family limit on contributions to an HSA -- $6,550 in 2014. You don't get double the limit by each opening your own HSA. If you have two HSA's, the combined total of your contributions to both accounts must be within the limit. If you have some administrative reason for wanting to keep separate accounts, yes, you can open your own, and in that case, you and your husband are each allowed to contribute half the limit, or you can agree to some other division. I suppose you might want to have an account in your own name so that you control it, especially if you and your husband have different ideas about managing finances. (Though how to resolve such problems would be an entirely different question. Personally, I don't think the solution is to get into power struggles over who controls what, but whatever.) Maybe there's some advantage to having assets in your own name if you and your husband were to divorce. (Probably not, though.
"Surprisingly, I got weird looks when I say ""I think I need a 2nd grocery bag"". I sometimes have to say things like: ""This bag looks heavy. I lost $2.50 of blueberries once because I was too cheap to pay $0.10 for a second bag"""
"The most important thing in my view is flexibility, to avoid running into problems. One useful thing in the UK would be an arranged overdraft. You go to your bank, and they'll agree that you can overdraw your account by a certain number of pounds, depending on your income etc. It will cost you a very high interest rate, but only for each day where you are overdrawn. So paying a bill two days before your salary comes in isn't too bad. Obviously avoid using the overdraft if you can, having an overdraft while not using it is free. It's meant for an emergency; being regularly overdrawn is expensive. But once it is arranged with your bank, an arranged overdraft is much much cheaper than bouncing cheques etc. and possibly high fees for overdrawing your account. And it takes the pressure of you.  Now things to need before you get a loan (again, UK): The real interest rate that you are paying is called APR. That's the number that counts, and that cannot be manipulated. No ""payday loans"" to avoid getting yourself into deep, deep trouble. No loan sharks, obviously. If you buy things with ""interest free credit"", that's (a) included in the price, so you pay more, and (b) if you miss paying by one day they'll hit you with huge interest payments, and some will try this intentionally. Interest rate depends on loan amount. I once had to borrow 20% more than I needed because it reduced the interest rate by half... The 20% went straight into a savings account. Credit cards and overdrafts are much more expensive than loans. Mortgage is again cheaper than a loan usually. Make sure that you only use money from sources that charge the least amount. Make sure you pay back regularly so cheap sources stay available to you.  Just do yourself a favour and if at all possible, spend less instead of getting a loan."
"The short answer is that banking is complicated, but the bank really doesn't need your money because it can get it from the Fed almost free, it can only use 90% of the money you give the bank, it can only make money on that 90% from very low-risk and thus low-return investments, and as it has to show a profit to its shareholders it will take whatever cut it needs to off the top of the returns. All of these things combine to make savings account interest roughly .05% in the US right now. The longer answer: All FDIC-insured banks (which the US requires all ""depositor"" banks to be) are subject to regulation by the Federal Reserve. The very first rule that all banks must comply with is that depositor money cannot be invested in things the Fed terms ""risky"". This limits banks from investing your money in things that have high returns, like stocks, commodities and hedges, because along with the high possible returns come high risk. Banks typically can only invest your savings in T-debt and in certain Fed-approved AAA bonds, which have very low risk and so very little return. The investment of bank assets into risky market funds was a major contributor to the financial crisis; with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, banks had been allowed to integrate their FDIC-insured depositor business with their ""investment banking"" business (not FDIC insured). While still not allowed to bet on ""risky"" investments with deposits, banks were using their own money (retained profits, corporate equity/bond money) to bet heavily in the markets, and were investing depositor funds in faulty AAA-rated investment objects like CDOs. When the housing market crashed, banks had to pull out of the investment market and cash in hedges like credit-default swaps to cover the depositor losses, which sent a tidal wave through the rest of the market. Banks really can't even loan your money out to people who walk in, like you'd think they would and which they traditionally used to do; that's how the savings and loan crisis happened, when speculators took out huge loans to invest, lost the cash, declared bankruptcy and left the S&Ls (and ultimately the FDIC) on the hook for depositors' money.
You need to know loans are not free; and they are not a way to solve budget issues. If you are having problems with making your income last over your expenses, you do not need to add another expense (in the form of a loan) What you really need to do is create a budget, track and understand your expenses, and then decide if you should focus on raising  your net income level or cutting down expenses. Keep up with your budget.  You can reduce the frequency, but you need to track your spending really for the rest of you life.  It is just a good habit, like personal hygiene. Once you understand your money (via your budget), you can start to save money into an emergency fund that will cover you during the times of zig zags. I say it very plainly as if it is super easy; but it requires will power and the foresight to understand that if you don't manage your money, nobody else will.  Being sane with your money is one of the most important things you can do now to improve your future. IMPROVEMENT NathanL has an excellent first step with budgeting:  Allocate money to be spent for the next month from money made during   the previous month. This will build a cushion into your budget and   alleviate the fear that the OP mentioned
Firstly, the banks are far less risky than the people they lend to. Most of the interest banks charge borrowers covers defaults, but banks rarely default to the fed, especially those able to borrow from the Fed.  Secondly, most banks borrowing is in the form of overnight loans to cover short term reserve fluctuations; they are not borrowing dollars to lend to you.  Thirdly, if govt does it's job of keeping some competition in the banking sector, then the rates offered you and me should be near the actual cost to service such loans, so are the true value of those loans. Since there are a significant number of banks that I can borrow from with a multitude of options in how to borrow, there is likely still decent competition for my business.  Finally, the Fed funds rate is not currently 0%, so the banks are not getting interest free money.
You can transfer to/from bank account. First, you must establish communication between PayPal and your bank. This has been my experience. Login to your PayPal account and do the following.  Step 1. Click My Account tab, then choose 'Profile'  Step 2. Choose My Money, Bank Account. There you can establish your bank account.  Step 3. After you establish your account, you will receive confirmation deposits to your acct within a few days.   Step 4. Once you confirm receiving the deposits, you can send/receive between PayPal and the account.
"Wells Fargo and Bank of America both belong to the clearXchange bank network (https://www.clearxchange.com/about).  You can send money to anyone for free with just their email address or phone number if you both use one of these banks: (Check the list on the clearXchange website, as the above list may change.) That means you can easily transfer money from a Wells Fargo account to a Bank of America account using Wells Fargo's ""SurePay"".  To go the other direction, on the Bank of America website click on the ""Transfers"" tab, then go to Send Money To Someone -> ""Using their email address or mobile number""."
It's got every sign of a scam. Signatures are needed on contracts, so you should only place them on below one. Free money sounds too good to be true. Money evading banks is a typical sign of money laundering; why are they trying to avoid paper trails? The normal way to gift money is to just hand it over or pay it to a bank account. If anything, you sign a tax declaration, but you would send that to the taxman yourself.
NRE FD : Apply to open a NRE FD Account online in India with HDFC Bank. HDFC Bank offers attractive tax-free interest on your savings. Check out the features, benefits, Interest rates &amp; Eligibility criteria at HDFC Bank and Open a NRE Fixed Deposit Account now.
"This is almost certainly a scam or a mistake. This is not good, spendable money: it is not yours to keep. Very simple to handle. Tell the bank, in writing that you were not expecting to receive this money and are a bit surprised to receive it. Preferably in a way that creates a paper trail. And then stop talking. Why? Because you honestly don't know. This puts you at arm's length to the money: disavowing it, but not refusing it. Wildest dreams: nobody wants it back ever. As for the person bugging you for the cash, tell them nothing except work with their own bank. Then ignore them completely. He probably hacked someone else, diverted their money into your account, and he's conning you into transferring it to a third location: him. Leaving you holding the bag when the reversals hit months later. He doesnt want you reversing; that would return the money to the rightful owner! He works this scam on dozens of people, and he wins if some cooperate. Now here's the hard part. Wait. This is not drama or gossip, you do not need to keep people updated. You are not a bank fraud officer who deals with the latest scams everyday, you don't know what the heck you are doing in this area of practice. (In fact, playing amateur sleuth will make you suspicious). There is nothing for you to do. That urge to ""do something"" is how scammers work on you. And these things take time. Not everyone banks in real time on smartphone apps. Of course scammers target those who'd be slow to notice; this game is all about velocity. Eventually (months), one of two things is likely to happen. The transfer is found to be fraudulent and the bank reverses it, and they slap you with penalties and/or the cops come knockin'. You refer them to the letter you sent, explaining your surprise at receiving it. That letter is your ""get out of jail free"" card. The other person works with their bank and claws back the money.
"This is a supplement to the additional answers.   One way to generate ""passive"" income is by taking advantage of high interest checking / saving accounts.  If you need to have a sum of liquid cash readily available at all times, you might as well earn the most interest you can while doing so.  I'm not on any bank's payroll, so a Google search can yield a lot on this topic and help you decide what's in your best interest (pun intended).     More amazingly, some banks will reward you straight in cash for simply using their accounts, barring some criteria.  There's one promotion I've been taking advantage of which provides me $20/month flat, irrespective of my account balance.  Again, I am not on anyone's payroll, but a Google search can be helpful here.  I'd call these passive, as once you meet the promotion criteria, you don't need to do anything else but wait for your money.   Of course, none of this will be enough to live off of, but any extra amount with minimal to zero time investment seems to be a good deal.   (if people do want links for the claims I make, I will put these up.  I just do not want to advertise directly for any banks or companies.)"
"You say you want a more ""stable"" system. Recall from your introductory economics courses that money has three roles: a medium of exchange (here is $, give me goods), a unit of account (you owe me $; the business made $ last year), and a store of value (I have saved $ for the future!). I assume that you are mostly concerned with the store-of-value role being eroded due to inflation. But first consider that most people still want regular currency, so as a medium of exchange or accounting unit anything would face an uphill battle. If you discard that role for your currency, and only want to store value with it, you could just buy equities and commodities and baskets of currencies and debt in a brokerage account (possibly using mutual funds) to store your value. Trillions of dollars' worth of business takes place this way every year already. Virtual currency was a bit of a dot-com bubble thing. The systems which didn't go completely bust and are still around have been beset by money-laundering, and otherwise remain largely an ignored niche. An online fiat currency has the same basic problem that another currency has. You need to trust the central bank not to create more money and cause inflation (or even just abscond with the funds... or go bankrupt / get sued). Perhaps the Federal Reserve may be jerking us around on that front right now.... they're still a lot more believable than a small private institution. Some banks might possibly be trustworthy enough to launch a currency, but it's hard to see why they'd bother (it can't be a big profit center, because people aren't willing to pay too much to just use money.) And an online currency that's backed by commodities (e.g. gold) is going to be subject to potentially violent swings in the prices of commodities. Imagine getting a loan out for your house, denominated in terms of e-gold, and then the price of gold triples. Ouch?"
In the second year the £15,000 from the first year will still earn interest, and any new money you put in will also earn interest from the time you deposit it.   All the interest is tax free.
frostbank.com is the closest thing I've found, so accepting this (my own) answer :) EDIT: editing from my comment earlier: frostbank.com has free incoming international wires, so that's a partial solution. I confirmed this works by depositing $1 (no min deposit requirement) and wiring $100 from a non-US bank. Worked great, no fees, and ACH'd it to my main back, no problems/fees. No outgoing international wires, alas.
Dwolla looks to be a great option. But it requires users to have an account there (Free to sign up). And there rates are absolutely amazing.  Free for transactions under $10 $0.25 to receive money on transactions over $10
"Ultimately you are as stuck as all other investors with low returns which get taxed. However there are a few possible mitigations. You can put up to 15k p.a. into a ""normal"" ISA (either cash or stocks & shares, or a combination) if your target is to generate the depost over 5 years you should maximise the amount you put in an ISA. Then when you come to buy, you cash in that part needed to top up your other savings for a deposit - i.e. keep the rest in for long term savings. The help to buy ISA might be helpful, but yes there is a limit on the purchase price which in London will restrict you. Several banks are offering good interest on limited sums in current accounts - Santander is probably the best you can get 3% (taxed) on up to 20K - this is a good ""safe"" return. Just open a 123 Account, arrange to pay out a couple of DDs and pay in £500 a month (you can take the £500 straight out again). I think Lloyds and TSB also offer similar but on much smaller ammounts. Be warned this strategy taken to the limit will involve some complexity checking your various accounts each month. After that you will end up trading better returns for greater risk by using more volatile stock market investments rather than cash deposits."
If you deposit an amount greater than S$50,000, it's only insured up to S$50,000. In the event that the bank fails or is declared insolvent, the SDIC will pay deposit holders their total balance in all accounts with that bank, up to S$50,000 in aggregate per depositor per Scheme member by law. In other words SDIC will only pay S$25000.00 and not S$50000.00, even though your deposit with that bank is insured up to S$50000.00 Please clarify this point as most banks are unaware of this aspect of the payout.
"Is he affiliated with the company charging this fee? If so, 1% is great. For him. You are correct, this is way too high. Whatever tax benefit this account provides is negated over a sufficiently long period of time. you need a different plan, and perhaps, a different friend. I see the ISA is similar to the US Roth account. Post tax money deposited, but growth and withdrawals tax free. (Someone correct, if I mis-read this). Consider - You deposit £10,000. 7.2% growth over 10 years and you'd have £20,000. Not quite, since 1% is taken each year, you have £18,250.  Here's what's crazy. When you realize you lost £1750 to fees, it's really 17.5% of the £10,000 your account would have grown absent those fees. In the US, our long term capital gain rate is 15%, so the fees after 10 years more than wipe out the benefit.  We are not supposed to recommend investments here, but it's safe to say there are ETFs (baskets of stocks reflecting an index, but trading like an individual stock) that have fees less than .1%.  The UK tag is appreciated, but your concern regarding fees is universal. Sorry for the long lecture, but ""1%, bad."""
He can do an internet bank transfer from his/her account to yours, a direct deposit at a branch of your bank, use PayPal, which should allow such an amount or similar methods. $7000 is not considered a large amount these days and should be quite easy to execute in a number of ways.
"There are no risk-free high-liquidity instruments that pay a significant amount of interest.  There are some money-market accounts around that pay 1%-2%, but they often have minimum balance or transaction limits.   Even if you could get 3%, on a $4K balance that would be $120 per year, or $10 per month.  You can do much better than that by just going to $tarbucks two less times per month (or whatever you can cut from your expenses) and putting that into the savings account. Or work a few extra hours and increase your income. I appreciate the desire to ""maximize"" the return on your money, but in reality increasing income and reducing expenses have a much greater impact until you build up significant savings and are able to absorb more risk.  Emergency funds should be highly liquid and risk-free, so traditional investments aren't appropriate vehicles for them."
E*Trade offers banking services, and will provide you with a security token free if you have sufficient assets there ($50,000). Otherwise they'll charge you a $25 fee.
"Generally, ACH transfers are not considered direct deposits. However, you can pay for this service to various providers, and they will do the transfer so that it would be marked as a direct deposit. For example, Wells Fargo allows doing it using their ""DirectPay"" system. I happen to have a WF business account (free with conditions) where this service is available, but there are plenty of providers. It does cost money (for WF - $10 monthly fee + $0.50 for a transfer to non-WF account), but it may be worth it for you if the benefit is large enough."
Yes. The bank is right. The funds need to be deposited in NRO account. Under the liberalised remittance scheme, you can transfer upto 1 million USD per year. There are prescribed forms that need to be signed by a CA (essentially stating taxes are paid). You can then move this out of India.
The above is very true, but the biggest bang for your buck can also be in the RESP, assuming you qualify for the grant of 20% per year...it's hard to beat free money from the government...in this account, your investment grows, and the growth and grant is taxed in the hands of the child when it is withdrawn. (Normally, they dont have much income at this point, so pay little or no tax)  However, you do not get any income tax deduction or tax break at the time you make the deposit.
"To answer your question point by point - I'd focus on the last point. The back of my business card -  Let's focus on Single. The standard deduction and exemption add to over $10K. I look at this as ""I can have $250K in my IRA, and my $10K (4%) annual withdrawal will be tax free. It takes another $36,900 to fill the 10 and 15% brackets. $922K saved pretax to have that withdrawn each year, or $1.17M total.  That said, I think that depositing to Roth in any year that one is in the 15% bracket or lower can make sense. I also like the Roth Roulette concept, if only for the fact that I am Google's first search result for that phrase.  Roth Roulette is systematically converting and recharacterizing each year the portion of the converted assets that have fallen or not risen as far in relative terms. A quick example. You own 3 volatile stocks, and convert them to 3 Roth accounts. A year later, they are (a) down 20%, (b) up 10%, (c) up 50%. You recharacterize the first two, but keep the 3rd in the Roth. You have a tax bill on say $10K, but have $15K in that Roth."
How can I correctly account for having money in different currencies, without currency transfers or currency fluctuations ending up as gains or losses? In my view, your spreadsheet should be in multiple currencies. i.e. if you have gained some in specific currency, make a note of it in that specific currency. If you have spent something in a specific currency, then make a note accordingly. You can use an additional column for reporting this in a neutral currency say GBP. If you are transferring the money from account of one currency to account of another; change the balances as appropriate with the actual conversion rate. If you need this record keeping for tax purposes, then get a proper advise from accountant.
"We use mint for just that. We have a ""shared"" account. We each have the mobile app and share the same pin for the application (not our phones -- you can set a pin in the settings on the application). Thus we each share a login to the site, where we have setup all of our accounts. In the ""Your Profile"" link at the top of the page, you may select the Email & Alerts option. From here you may add a second e-mail account. This way if you go over a budget or have a bill upcoming each of you will get a notification. We have setup budgeting through the web site, and either of us can modify the budget via logging in."