vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
It doesn't go on Schedule E at all, it goes on form 4797. The fridge should have been depreciated, over 5 years. If you sold it after 5 years, all the proceeds are taxable income taxed as depreciation recapture (25% rate) up to the allowable depreciation (your original cost basis), above which it is taxable capital gain. Whether you actually have depreciated it or not, it is really your problem, IRS doesn't care. So if 5 years of ownership passed - just write it all as taxable income on the form 4797. Otherwise, allowable depreciation prorated (and you can still amend forms 3 years back to get at least part of it). The new fridge should also be depreciated over the 5 years of its expected useful life. See form 4562. Talk to a licensed tax professional (EA/CPA licensed in your state) for details.
Check out personal finance. But, my guess is no. Given you are married and you were prepared to contribute $x out of the entire family pot, why don't they just contribute $x from their portion of the entire family pot? Net effect should be similar or identical. (I'm not an accountant nor married, so enjoy the grain of salt).
While some of that money was made overseas, in many cases half or more was made domestically. I'm not pretending that a company should have any obligation to pay taxes to America on money earned abroad, but I am saying they have an obligation to pay taxes to America earned at home.  If an American company cannot discern between domestic and foreign sales, that sounds like a them problem, not a me problem, and we'll assess the full amount. Something tells me they'll be able to report the portion they made domestically.
You can use Skrill or any other service like paypal or SWIFT wire. There is no legal restriction to bring money into India. You need to pay taxes depending on how you earned the income, of course the assumption is you earned the money in a legal way.
Your crystal ball of presumption is clearly cracked.  Apple admitted to paying a 6% overseas tax rate in 2015.  It has been suggested they pay about 8% in the US, but nobody really knows but them.  What an utterly ridiclous statement to suggest they are anywhere close to losing money.  Any fool can see Apple is highly profitable and competetive everywhere.  Multinational corporations have amasses over two trillion dollars overseas.  The competition is over when you get to profit.  Cash is useless until transformed into something material.  They should want to improve the country of their origin.
"You withdrew the 'cash' portion, and will pay tax on it. How was the check ""another for move remaining to B"" issued? Was it payable to you? If so, it's too late, it's your money and the whole account was cashed out.  If it was payable to B, you should have had it sent directly to their custodian, are you saying you still have that check? You might need to ask A to reissue the check to you, since you are no longer in the US. I'm not sure if you can roll it to an IRA at this point."
Local currency (United States Dollar-USD) and foreign currencies: no restrictions, provided that arriving and departing passengers must report to US customs any money or other monetary instruments exceeding USD 10,000.-. Gold: Importation of gold coins or small, non-commercial quantities of gold must be declared upon arrival. If you are looking for some specific asstes and not just cash, elabotare on details like
The money you will be bringing to the US will be classified as your own money, and will not be taxable. The proceeds from the sale are taxable to you, probably as capital gains. The fact that you kept the proceeds out of the US is irrelevant for that purpose (it is relevant for FBAR/FATCA etc). Since you had no basis in the property, all the proceeds are taxable to you at the time of the sale and should be reported on your tax return.
You could use a money transfer service like Western Union or the equivalent.
But it's not tax evasion. They are trying to avoid the US's double dipping on foreign income -- an unjust tax if there ever was one. If the money is made overseas then the US government shouldn't have any right to it. I mean, they didn't build any of that infrastructure. That's the way it works in most countries. Their fair share is 0.
If I remember correctly my own experience : no you can't. Paypal will block the money even if it's only for online payement.
Depends on the countries and their rules about moving money across the border,  but in this case that appears entirely reasonable. Of course it would be a gamble unless you can predict the future values of currency better than most folks; there is no guarantee that the exchange rate will move in any particular direction. I have no idea whether any tax is due on profit from currency arbitrage.
Your NRI friend can use normal Banks or specialized remittance services. There are questions on this website that give pro's and con's. From Indian tax point of you, you have received a gift from friend and as such it falls under Gift Tax act. Any amount upto Rs 50,000 is tax free. Anything above it is taxable as per tax bracket.
You don't.  When you get to Japan, use your ATM card to withdraw local currency.  My bank (ETrade) doesn't charge me int'l fees.
Atm machine and my Credit Union account. Low fees (often zero, if the machine is on any of the same networks) and decent exchange rate, and no need to carry cash or traveler's checks to be exchanged. Alternatively, pay by credit card, though there is a foreign transaction fee on that.
I spoke to HMRC and they said #1 is not allowable but #2 is. They suggested using either their published exchange rates or I could use another source. I suggested the Bank of England spot rates and that was deemed reasonable and allowable.
"Simplest is probably international bank transfer.  If you don't like those, I had a friend who would buy travelers cheques, endorse them and write in large ""Only pay to the order of ****"" then send them by mail.  Very difficult for anyone other than the recipient to cash, very low fees, and there next day if you send it overnight mail."
Have you tried TransferWise.  They offer nice cross currency transfers with really low rates.
The underlying condescension of this article is palpable. I would imagine that given any lack of compulsory regulation, that Americans are using whatever means of payment that suits them.  There's always this assumption that Americans are the most backwards people around. And Americans are always willing to just sit there and willingly and unquestionably imbibe the yokel-dom status ascribed to them by these elitists. I'm calling bullshit on this one.
2014 Limit: $2,500 Notes 2014 Limit: $3,300 individual, $6,550 family Notes 2014 Limit: $5,000 Notes 2014 Limit: $2,500 Notes 2014 Limit: $250/month Notes 2014 Limit: $130/month Notes
I'd take the match, but I wouldn't contribute beyond your match, for two reasons:
"From the IRS' website:  How many annual exclusions are available? The annual exclusion applies to gifts to each donee. In other words,   if you give each of your children $11,000 in 2002-2005, $12,000 in   2006-2008, $13,000 in 2009-2012 and $14,000 on or after January 1,   2013, the annual exclusion applies to each gift. The annual exclusion   for 2014, 2015, and 2016 is $14,000. What if my spouse and I want to give away property that we own together? You are each entitled to the annual exclusion amount on the gift.   Together, you can give $22,000 to each donee (2002-2005) or $24,000   (2006-2008), $26,000 (2009-2012) and $28,000 on or after January 1,   2013 (including 2014, 2015, and 2016). https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/frequently-asked-questions-on-gift-taxes Basically, this means that it doesn't matter which person it specifically comes from as it's a ""joint"" gift.  There is more complicated paperwork to fill out if the gift comes from a single check and needs to be ""split"" for taxes. Each parent would need to fill out a separate gift tax return form, essentially proving that both parents approve of the gift. It seems like it's easier if each parent writes a separate check, however it's not a requirement."
In theory there is no limit to the value of a cheque that you can write. However, that doesn't mean the bank will honour it even if you have sufficient funds in your account - if it appears out of the ordinary, they may block it on suspicion of fraud or money laundering.
Your best bet is to remove the excess contribution. Your broker should have forms to do that. There is a 6% tax on the excess contributions for each year that it remains uncorrected. It would be better to just eat the $25 fee and get rid of any future headaches.
If she is unemployed / stay-at-home caregiver, you can squirrel away up to $5,500 in a spousal IRA.
Usually five shares and some cash.
You do realize that compulsive charity isn't charity at all, right? If you take the moral agency out of the equation, it's simply wealth redistribution plain and simple.   John 12:8 seems to take the wind out of your sails on your search for the only real deadly sin in the age moral relativiam: hypocrisy.
"Ask yourself one question - ""Why me?""  Say I had no friends or family (that I liked). I have money and I'm dying. There are a half dozen charities I'd write checks to. Under what circumstances would I ever contact a stranger to try to give my money away? That answers why this is a scam."
You know, your attempt at dramatic fiction is beneath you.  You are more than this,  You were taught as a child to love your neighbor and now you are going against your own beliefs to support the increase in income of people who are so much more powerful than you are and really don't care about you at all except for your vote.  Is that how you want to be remembered?  You have your entire life ahead of you.  I want you to enjoy every last moment of it, but keep your eyes open and look around and see all the possibilities in front of you besides hating other people.
"Honestly, i've jokingly characterized myself in the past as ""anti-death"" but it is, to an extent, true. I am, in a moral sense, a Utilitarian: Most good for the msot people, and all that. I consider death to be the last form of suffering we must eliminate."
Edit:  I'm going to restate my original point without calling attention to charity being considered squandering because I feel it takes away from what I was trying to say.    I wanted to leave this here though, because I think the statistics that show wealth is squandered by the third generation include people who chose to give their fortune away.   It's also worth noting that for future generations to maintain a fortune, there needs to be an unbroken chain of people who decided *not* to give it away.
You cannot really help someone who doesn't want to help themselves.   Show me an addict who is suffering and asking for help; trying to hard to stop, and I'll help.   But to the addict that is sitting on the bench drooling  with needle mark on the arm, they are a lost cause until they decide they are ready for help.   You do you, if you want to take your hard earned money and help those that I deem 'unworthy' by all means do it. If it makes you feel good who am I too stop you. However, don't turn your optional charity into forced taxation.
Thanks for clarifying.  Also, I know Goodwill, and most likely the others, aren't technically one entity, but rather many entities under the same operating name, so there are many CEOs that work for Goodwill.  Maybe there is one that heads the whole thing, but I wonder how much is going to all the C-levels?
Yes that is actually on the win side for ebooks. The only thing is I'm not sure you can leave your account to your heirs but they probably don't feel like dealing with your big physical library of things they don't care about - so not really much loss there.
Yeah, that's in the public knowledge. What I actually want to know is who runs the foundation after the current co-chairs Mr. &amp; Ms Gates, Gates Sr., and Buffett are gone.   Will the juniors be in the payroll? Will the juniors be living in the houses owned by the foundation?   Question is what kind of relationship will the juniors have with that foundation after the seniors have gone?
If you plan on retiring now you probably can, as Jay mentioned there is a provision in the law for early retirement, as long as you take annual distributions.
wtf is this non-sequitur about the Smithsonian? Is Journalism at the Washington Examiner just throwing in random bullshit? &gt; On the list of top political donors compiled by OpenSecrets.org, the Koch brothers rank only 59th. Meanwhile, the top 10 list is dominated by unions and corporations which benefit from handouts and special favors from government (which really means you, the taxpayer) and give overwhelmingly to the party that keeps them coming, the Democrats. Yeah, no shit this election cycle when the GOP nominated a reality TV star. In the last election cycle, according to OpenSecrets, that was not the case. The majority of campaign donations by corporations went to Republicans. So instead of ""crony capitalism"", the Washington Examiner should look at the real cause, the embarrassment to the Republican party."
"I really wish they'd change the title to ""corporations"".  Companies aren't the only thing that can be corporations and avoid jail.  Other organizations that operate as partnerships or sole proprietors in effect operate as people that can be arrested and put in jail and can't hide the owners and can't contribute unlimited amounts to candidates."
&gt;  In these cases the individuals are planning for their future generations  This makes no sense to me. I cannot fathom why somebody would work all their lives, save up millions of dollars, and never use it themselves.
"Deuteronomy 14:28 - ""at the end of every third year you shall bring out all the tithe of your produce that year and shall deposit it in your town.""  Deuteronomy 15:8 - ""but you shall freely open your hand to him, and shall generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks.""  Proverbs 19:17 - ""One who is gracious to a poor man lends to the LORD, and he will repay him for his good deed.""  Matthew 5:42 - ""Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.""  Luke 18:22 - ""When Jesus heard this, He said to him, ""One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.""  1 Corinthians 16:1-3 -  ""Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also. On the first day of every week each one of you ja to put aside and save as he may prosper so that no collections be made when I come. When I arrive, whom Weber you may approve, I will send them with letters to carry your gift to Jerusalem.""  Boy the Bible seems to be pretty clear that charity is compulsory. And that money must be sent aside for the poor if you are to receive Gods light."
"What's the value of the scholarship, and is it administered by itself or by the university?  If by itself, the financial return discussed above drives.  If by the university, they create the tuition, so it gets more interesting.   If this is something that is administered and backstopped by the university, then keep in mind that while it may be named the ""John Doe Memorial Scholarship"" with $30000 in it's account under the endowment, the university overall is likely to cut some number of students' tuition in financial aid packages anyway.  Let's say they substitute a generic tuition adjustment in past years with this happens-to-be-named ""John Doe Memorial Scholarship"" moving forward: the university can do this as long as they are not constrained in pricing power by laws and financial aid customs.  There's the finance answer, and there's the fact that a university can create a ""coupon"" indefinitely (Similar in concept to the price discrimination where Proctor and Gamble can launch a new flavor of Tide at a high price to maintain the market position, and flood marketing channels with coupons) Also the university might find it to be an inexpensive benefit to the faculty to create a ceremony around a valued, deceased professor; collecting funds from other professors or staff to partially pay for it at finance price or even a slight loss."
You still have no right to band with others and force people to do projects that your group wants done.  If you are a decent person, you already live by that rule.  You just haven't yet examined your memorized justifications for taxation.
Confused? see your CPA
We had planned to be in Siem Reap in January 2017. In December 2016 my Mother-In-Law passed away from the effects of Dementia, which she had battled with for 11 Years. We were forced to abandon our Vietnam/Cambodia holiday. One day we'll get there. And when we do, I'll make sure we give you as much business as we can.
There isn't going to be one right answer, but LessWrong has some posts on effective altruism you might find helpful. They also link to a TED talk
Depends on what work you're doing. If you aren't doing a job which involves working with and understanding the data, probably not.
I think living in a city where you can't take care of yourself. Has led many people to become unable of ever taking care of themselves. I personally would be happy with a few acres of land a house and some solar. But what makes me happy doesn't make other's happy. So I wont even try to force my opinion of what is good in life on them. The only thing stopping me from living my dream and being left alone is you and your taxes. Which no matter how self sufficient I am and how little I need or want the rest of society. I will always be a slave to paying those taxes so your life can be easier and my life can be harder. Take from those who want to share your dream and leave the rest of us alone.  You don't think about that, though, do you?   Edit...[What do you want?](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGHfaYY_1jk)
&gt; Sure: right after you pay for all things that one NEEDS. What is left over should be for WANTS.  I don't think you really understood what I said. The basic needs of a people should be met by their government. Particularly as the world rushes towards an automated workplace.
Unfortunately, yes.      You will build an unnecessary 'slippery slope' argument. Can we confine our conversation to healthcare?    Everyone I've ever met would like to never get medical bills.  We also feel that one should earn one's own shoes, we just put a * on everything as a matter of course.  Where are you coming from?
"Careful with saying ""no need"".  Look careful at the cost of life insurance. That cost depends obviously on the amount, but also on the age when you start paying into the insurance. If you take out a $100,000 insurance at 20, and someone else takes it out at 30, and a third person at 50, they will pay hugely different amounts when you reach the same age. You will pay less when you are 50 then the person taking out insurance at 30 when they reach the age of 50, and less again than the person who just started with their life insurance.  And as mhoran said, once you have insurance you can keep it even if you get an illness that would make you uninsurable."
No, everyone has the ability to plan their life. Everyone. I grew up piss poor and black. Living below your means doesnt mean homelessness. It means buy groceries instead of eating out, pay $500 room rent vs $1200 apt.   Sacrifice today for tomorrow
lol, not at all! A hunter-gatherer could die of a simple toothache or infected cut on their hand. Also, no movies!  I was simply hoping to point out that they didn't spend as much time securing the little they needed to survive as some seem to assume.
You can do both if you please but a near majority of the country is just looking out for their own interests and would gladly cut you off in time of need to save a few bucks.  That doesn't make it right, just the state of things.
Here's an easy 2 question test: (1) Is there anyone who relies on your income for their general welfare? (2) Is it worth the premium amount to you to make sure they aren't left out in the cold? If you can answer yes to both questions, buy (term) life insurance.
No it wont. Almost everything that can be automated already has. Things that havent been automated  that involve any human level of decision making wont be automated for a very long time. Engineers cant even reliably get a robot to recognize an object like a chair.
Neither. Food, fuel, and tools. Books on how to make and use basic tools -- the books published for farmers who want to kluge their own solutions might be helpful. Heck, help defend a library; it will be beyond price as soon as things settle out a bit. Having skills like blacksmithing and knowing how to teach could go a long way. SF really has explored this in better detail than we could possibly cover here.
Guns. Without them, any other conceivable asset would be taken from you. By someone with guns.
Absolutely.  But every society doesn't need a substantial percentage of its population to be only capable of menial work.       I'm only proposing reducing the total number of unskilled laborers with the idea that you can't and don't want to get rid of them all.
&gt;As much as I think that shouldn't be necessary  Feel free to take that argument up with biochemistry.  &gt;I also find it hard to consider the possibility a bad thing.  Disregarding potential negative side effects, how on earth would it be a bad thing?
Things earned can be easily taken away in a time of crisis with the flick of a pen, you are probably better off preparing yourself by means of being self-sufficent, independant, capable and skilled in a profession that is likely to be in demand regardless of the crisis at hand. Bad things will happen to you, it might be the stock market or the rise of hyper-intelligent bunnies, a good investor would say diversify your risk and be prepared for anything.
This. My partner is a highly skilled tech worker and we have slowly been coming up with a back up plan to leave if things get too crazy. I was born here and fully intended to die here but I have a chronic illness that could kill me and I'm scared. I know a few others who are doing the same.
It does.  Your kids won't care that at one point you had to wind a ring past numbers to dial someone on the phone or that the internet didn't exist or that no one had air conditioning or that food had to be run down and killed.  People just see what is, what others have, and want more from there.
Education is totally depending on the skills and mindset of the student. Many many students can be self taught and/or are motivated to learn. They don't need teachers.  Then there are those who want to learn, but have difficulties. They need teachers, but probably one-on-one.  The rest are mostly in school just because they have to.  So, yes, we will need schools and teachers mostly for the later - students who, given a chance, will not learn anything.
I agree with you for the most part, but to add on there is no right to have a Family or get married. You can survive working on subway if you want that to be your job and support yourself. It won't be glamorous but it's possible.
Or yeah if there is a cheap enough way for me to manafature them! As I said earlier I've tried 3d printed them but don't think that's gonna work, cannot produce the quantity required in an effective timescale
Do we need WW3? Yes, like we need a hole in the head.   The *last* thing we need is to divert more resources to producing war materiel. We should actually reduce our MIC-related output and instead make shit that people can actually use, like computers and food and books and and telephones.
The wealthiest man is not the one who has the most, but who needs the least.