vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
If it goes to a millionaire who continues to pay larger bills than others while unemployed then that money goes right back into the economy.  The money for unemployment insurance is linked to compensation.  If they are millionaires then their compensation has already paid for unemployment insurance.  This idea that money is going to turn around and go to some others possibly through some other program is flatly wrong.  Either you have unemployment insurance or you don't.  You want to withhold unemployment insurance from rich people because you don't think they are worthy.  That is an interesting idea, but so far it has never worked politically.
Staying out of India for a certain duration on a year (financial year) deems one to be considered NRI (non-resident Indian). NRIs are not taxed under Indian tax law as they are deemed subject to the resident country tax laws, so for NRI there is no tax liability in India. For your specific case, you could consult a Charted Accountant (CA) and he/she will be able to tell you exactly after looking at your financial data.
Thank you for being polite. To be fair, I suppose if you had a good career path and the industry nose-dived then you could end up working a low wage job even if you had some kills (that, for whatever reason, are no longer in demand).
"Yes, your debt goes up by that amount. It becomes part of the loan, and you'll pay interest on it. That's what ""capitalization "" means. It's not a bill because you don't have to pay it. We'll, not yet…"
I don't see how it makes a difference?    Setup a futures contract for 33 times more than you have the capital to support and write it as confirmed income, slot it into your balance sheet and then borrow against it.  It's fundamentally no different to the example from the OP, it's just a different way of reaching it.
They absolutely did. GS led the financing with BAML. AMZN also only has like 20B on the balance sheet if I'm remembering right. A 14B deal without taking out debt would be somewhat problematic given how much of it is regularly getting tied up in working capital.
That's effectively borrowing on margin from the government. You too can borrow on margin, just not from the government.  It is true that the government perverts the finance system through. I would imagine it would be very hard to play basketball too, if the ref didn't play basketball.
"There are a number of bona fide reasons to consider here. If there is a cost to discharging a security packet, or a mortgage, it may not be convenient if we are advanced in the repayment schedule. Early exit fees may apply, or the interest may be ""pre-determined"". As a rule of thumb, when we are talking about rates above 10% p.a. then arrangements should be short (bridging finance - keep it short and charge 'em heaps), and for personal arrangements, small."
They changed the way trailing interest is calculated back in 2008 if I recall correctly. The idea at the time was that the interest charges to the customer were somewhat less, but it made trying to get a payoff quote a PITA. They used to take payments for more than the current balance due at that time, however. I can't provide any insight as to why they won't now, though.
Oh I wasn't arguing with you, just trying to expound upon what you said because. The title makes it sound like GE would just have $7 billion in cash in a single bank account it could use instantly.  Bro, calm down!  Ya, if you're an accounting major, you probably have more valid input on why taking a $7 billion loan is better than touching it's cash and cash convertibles.
Why does total debt matter?  What really matters is debt service.  What is the percentage of GDP that is used for debt service?  If you borrow money at 2% versus 18% it makes a **HUGE** difference in how much you pay back.    In fact, Japan's debt goes down each year that inflation is greater than 2% (in purchasing power).
The examples of debt in the article are about the ones who bought at around $100,000 years ago and then borrowed against the medallion as its value soared towards a million. This is like pretty much every bubble. Banks didn't place that level of debt on the owners, they foolishly loaned money to owners based on inflated values. Now both the banks and the owners are suffering the consequences of those bad loans as the values plummet.
&gt;Just because one issue is tied up in legal battles doesn't mean you have to stop raising capital  Isn't that the problem? YOu said it yourself that nobody will be interested in losing more money on the country's defaults, so where are they going to raise this capital from?
You should be able to refinance the vehicle and have the financing in just your name (assuming you can secure the financing). Since you are already on the vehicle registration, this would not constitute a sale, and thus would not incur additional sales tax.  To remove the other person from the vehicle registration, leaving you as the sole registered owner, in the state of New York, you only need to file an MV-82. It will cost you $3. https://dmv.ny.gov/registration/register-vehicle-more-one-owner-or-registrant
They just let you borrow a little more every months. When the owner dies/sells they get all their money + % back.
Ok, so A &gt; B = $3, and A &lt; B = $4.25, so A gets + $1.25 which they use towards their debt?  Can you buy interest rate swaps from a brokerage? Can individuals enter into swaps, and bet rates will go higher?
This is a junk article with a junk assumption. We have higher levels of debts today, but we have low rates of defaults. We don't have NINJA loans coming to an end in 6 months where the default rate suddenly doubles and triples. We don't have massive amounts of swaps against mortgages or even other forms of private debt skyrocketing. Moody's and S&amp;P review process was totally revamped.  If this article could get beyond basic theory and talk about specifics, it might be able to make a point, but instead it lost me after 2 paragraphs.
Find today's latest refinance rates and new home loan rates and learn more from featured lenders. Our program is designed to assist future and current homeowners with the process of managing their credit and determining a house payment that is right for you. Therefore, if you are seeking for financial assistance in Delaware, you must seek the consultation of Highlands’s mortgage in order to get the best deal and that too at lower prices.
This is adequately covered by the differential between lending and receiving interest rates.  ...and technically, they pay the central bank an interest rate on the money lent as well, which means that they *are* paying back equity holders (all be it very slowly and very slightly).  The equity holders have the ability to will money into existence, so there's no artificial limitation they face with respect to the branch banking system.
The banks figure that they'll get 80% of the value of the property at a sheriff's sale. So, they're lending you what they think they can recover if you default.
If the customer pays 20% of the payment in advance, then he is he owns 20% of the house and the bank owns 80%. Now they say he pays the rest of the amount and also the rent of the house until he becomes the sole owner of the house.
The proper answer is that you run the numbers and see whether what you'll save in interest exceeds the closing costs by enough to be interesting.  Most lenders these days have calculations that can help with this on their websites and/or would be glad to help if asked. Rule of thumb: if you can reduce interest rate by 1% or more it's worth investing.
A mortgage will show as a lien on your property. Say your home is worth 400,000 (money units) but you only owe 200,000. A lender may be willing to be second in line, lending you another 100,000.
You put 20% down and already owe the 80% or $80k, so you don't have the ability to borrow $100k or even $20k for that matter. As LittleAdv stated, the banks have really tightened their lending criteria. Borrowing out more than 80% carries a high premium if you can get it at all.  In your example, you want the property to increase in value by at least 10% to borrow $10K.
Your only option might be finding a seller-financed property with a motivated seller who is willing to take the risk of loaning you money. However, be prepared to pay a hefty rate on that loan if you can even pull it off.
Banks and lenders have become a bit more conservative since the housing crisis. 80% is a typical limit. The reason is to minimize the lender's risk if declining property values would put the borrower upside-down on the loan. http://www.bankrate.com/finance/home-equity/how-much-equity-can-you-cash-out-of-home.aspx
When i got my first mtg, I was required to put 20% down and provide all kinds of proof of my ability to pay the mtg ... years of w2, tax returns, bank statements etc.  Who changed these standards and why?
Imagine the bank loaning 100% of the sum of money you needed to buy a house, if the valuation of the house decreases to 90% of the original price after 3 months, would it be unfair for them to ask them for 10% of the original price from you immediately? I suppose the rationale for loaning 80% is so that you will fork our 20% first, and so your property is protected from fluctuations in the market, that they do not need to collect additional money from you as your housing valuation rarely drops below 80% of the original price. Banks do need to make money too, as they run as a business.
If the bank will escrow your property tax they may want as much as a full quarter's worth in advance. Closing costs can range from zero to 2% or so of the mortgage.  On the $100k house, I'd have $8-10k in a maintenance/repair fund. Much of this will depend on how old the house is and the condition of the systems. Everything powered will fail eventually, the heating/cooling systems, water heater, dishwasher, oven/microwave, fridge, pump if there's well water. All these listed items each have a range of cost depending on size, style, power, etc.
As per my comments, I think this is up to you and how much work you want to put forth.  I do not feel it is trivial to provide documentation even with 90% of it will be the same among lenders. See this question: First answer, third and fourth paragraphs. You need to go as far as understanding the total cost of the loan, you probably need a good faith estimate.  I would also compare a minimum of three lenders.
Shop around a bit. You can probably do better than $5k. See this calculator to decide if your payoff period will happen before you think you'll move. If you're at 8% now it may come sooner than you think -- especially if you can lower that closing cost estimate and still get a good rate.
No. And I'll let my good friend and fellow blogger Kay Bell answer in some detail, in her article Deducting private mortgage insurance.
Thanks for the extra info on the property tax. So it sounds like it's going to be $1500 for a $150k house. I'm sure even if it's sold for $150 the state might still value it at $15k and you'll end up with $150 in property taxes which is basically nothing.
I mean, if we're using anecdotes I own a house in Seattle that I bought when I was 25. And my wife and I just bought another house to live in in the greater Seattle area. Can't and don't aren't necessarily the same thing. It's just about how people prioritize.
One reason is that insurance gives you tranquility.  Without insurance, you live with the uncertainty of not knowing if/when disaster is going to strike. Insurance allows you to trade this uncertainty for regular monthly/yearly payments.
I recommend fixing the roof. You're going to pay for it eventually, either as an emergency repair or a concession at sale.
If an individual wants insurance and a company exists that is able to provide such service, they should have every right to do so. It's a mutual exchange. Of course the government tends to jump in and play games but that's a different discussion. If people want flat fees the same should apply.   Citizens pay for the police, firemen, all in the form of taxes. The intention of their job is then to ensure your safety to the best of their ability if something were to happen. I'm not sure where the distinction you postulate even exists.
Generally no. It does not make sense for insurance company to alter terms and if there are such rules it can be subject to misuse.
Houses depreciate. Period. Things break: the hot water heater explodes, the AC cuts out in August, the roof leaks, the basement floods, toilets back up, raccoons dig up the garden. Each time something breaks, the house loses value. Every year the paint fades a little, the house loses value. Every time GE comes out with a more efficient washing machine, the house loses value. The only reason a house appears to maintain its value over time is because the money you spend repairing and improving it offsets this unavoidable depreciation. Even then, over extended periods of time it will typically just track inflation--so you're treading water. Not that there's anything wrong with that. You need to live somewhere.
As many other posters have pointed out, unless you know (and your insurer doesn't) that because of any reason you are more likely than the average to damage your computer, insuring it doesn't really make a lot of sense if you can comfortably replace it should the worst happen. In this particular case of a laptop, insurance is especially unattractive because computers depreciate fairly quickly. If you break it... ...and you're insured, you will get the very same laptop you bought more than a year ago. ...and you're not insured, you can choose to either find the same laptop at a substantially lower price (Apple does not really lower prices that much but you can probably get a refurbished unit, just like you could get with AppleCare) or spend the original amount in a newer and more powerful laptop.
"All of the insurance policies I'm familiar with have different costs for liability vs replacement coverage of the specific item. Typically liability insurance is very cheap by comparison, and is therefore a ""must-strongly-consider"". Insuring your specific item is up to you, and depends on how badly you'll feel if you lose it to theft or destruction. Even if you choose not to insure your boat for replacement value, don't forgo liability though, for if you hit something expensive, or if someone is severely injured or killed as a result of an action related to your boat, your outlay could be extremely high."
If this were to happen, maybe it would encourage people to maintain their own stuff. Mow their own lawns, maintain their homes etc.. If someone quoted me 16k for a new roof, I'd march my ass straight to the roofing supply store and figure out how to do it myself.
In general, damage caused intentionally as well as contractual liability are not covered under liability insurance policies.   Direct quote from your source... Use some logic.  How can a company be profitable insuring stupidity?  Show me an example where gross negligence was covered by an insurance company and billions paid out.   that's all I ask....
I probably would not take it out, since I have enough layers of backstops: Maybe if I could find a better rate. :)
They get insurance when they believe that the cost of replacing the boat does impact their lives.  We are also assuming that liability insurance is something you will purchase, since if your boat breaks loose and smashes into a $1,000,000 boat that is cash you probably don't have. It will also cover you if somebody falls on the boat. In your comment you mention that the cost will be $2,000 for 4 years. The issue is are you willing to save $2,000 by foregoing insurance but risk the $10,000 boat.
Rocky is right on the money, +1 from me.  I will adjust the convince and money issue: You don't mention your country, but here in the US several companies make it very easy to rent.  For example, with a reservation National will allow you to pick any car you want.  Just walk up, jump in, and ride away.  Avis and Hertz will have your car ready, just find your name, go to your spot and jump in and go.  All the paperwork is done electronically in both cases. Enterprise will come and pick you up, at just about any location, bring you to the shop and allow you to do the paperwork there.  I am not sure if that paperwork can be done electronically, but perhaps it can.  They will do the same in reverse once the rental is over. The key here is budget.  You will save a lot of money by renting when needed over your peers that own a car.  However, you will need to plan to have the money each month.   I'd plan on having 50*2*4.*75 = 300 in a four weekend month, and 375 in a five weekend month.  Carry over any excess not spent to the subsequent months.  You will be well ahead of the game and not feel restricted in spending the money to rent.
"Consider buying a legal ""mother daughter"" property, rent out the top part, and live in the ""mother"" component."
If you lease a car, you are paying for the depreciation of a certain number of miles, even if you don't actually use those miles.  Since you know you will be well under the standard number of miles when your lease is up, and you already know that you want to keep the car, buying is better than leasing.
I would suggest the use of a management company to handle a rental property.  They will take care of things like collecting rent, coordinating repairs and all the little things that come up when dealing with a renters.    They typically charge a percentage of the rent or a flat fee, so make sure you include that in your rent calculation.  You take a little bit of a financial hit, but save a lot of head aches - especially if you decide to acquire multiple properties in the future.
my friend and his wife are expecting their 2nd kid and living in a 1 1/2 bedroom apt downtown. Reason: his job is downtown and parking and public transit to get there from the suburbs is crap. They want something bigger with a yard but just can't do it. They can rent in the burbs for around what they are currently paying - it's just the hour commute (if he's lucky) each way - right now it's a 10 min. walk.
How about a slightly different approach. Invest in a duplex or trip/quadplex. Live in one unit, rent out the rest. Chances are you'll end up either paying nothing in total, or even making money as your tenants pay your bills for you. Depends a lot on your area and your willingness to deal with the crap of tenants, but have a look into it. You'll be surprised what you can buy in your area and the types of people you might end up living with you...
Stopping at Best Buy on your way home from work is definitely faster, but it's not free. Your time is worth something and if I can push a few buttons and let Amazon do the work, I am saving time even if I do not get the product right now.
So home owners should simply only charge low rents and only rent to long term renters out of the goodness of their hearts, yes?    How do you expect to convince them ALL to act the way you want on a macro level?
&gt;I would much rather have my money in an up-trend.       Damn right.    Or at least have it liquid. We couldn't sell this house now, even though it's one of the best in the neighborhood. (The nice, but smaller, house across the street has been on the market for over a year.) A few other houses in the neighborhood didn't seem to have any problems being rented, though, so we could likely get rental income from this one if we wanted.
I agree. Money has been funnelled to the top and debt on the those at the bottom for so long people just can't afford to buy a house. Student loans are as expensive as a house. Who can afford two payments like that?
Unfortunately many millenials are stuck in this housing catch 22 where (for various reasons) they can't save up enough money to buy a home and since so many of them can't buy homes, they have to rent, which raises rent prices, which makes it even more difficult to save up for a home.
Complexity has mentioned some good points. I'd also like to add on the downsides:  It's not that easy to get rid of a tenant!  Imagine if your tenant passed your background check with flying colors but then turned out to be the tenant from hell...  How would you resolve the situation?  If the thought of that kind of situation stresses you (it would stress me!), I would consider carefully whether you really want to be a landlord.
I think part of why it is perceived is so bad is because the fluctuations in housing prices are relatively large, especially compared to the amount needed to put a down payment.  This is not an uncommon scenario: And this is not even being underwater, just being even.  Imagine how much worse it feels if your dream of home ownership has turned into just a pile of debt.
&gt; The paper, which is yet to be published, found that a 10 percent increase in Airbnb listings can create an average 0.39 percent increase in rents and an average 0.64 percent increase in home prices, the Wall Street Journal reported.  In the long term, rents and property value go up at the same rate. So if they're saying that one is almost double the other, the margin of error here could be very large.
If both spousal units are US citizens, they have unlimited transfer ability, no gift tax issue.
Canada doesn't seem to have a gift tax. http://www.taxtips.ca/personaltax/giftsandinheritances.htm
Are you in the United States? Is there some sort of written agreement that the money your parents paid into the house is a loan that will be paid back?  I assume the deed to the home is in your name, and your parents do not have a lien on the property in any way? In the United States provided there is no lien and your parents are not also on the mortgage, that home is 100% yours. Now I would argue you still owe your parents money, but absent some sort of contract it sounds like an interest free loan that you'll pay back at a rate of 500$/month.  Your parents could attempt to sue you and if this happens I recommend you find a real estate attorney. It's unlikely that they would win the case since there's no paperwork and even if there was it is unlikely to hold up since it so strongly favors them ( your parents ).  Now if your parents are listed on the mortgage or somehow have a lien on the house, you have a bigger issue as they technically own (or at least have an interest in) part of the property and when you decide to sell the house you would have to involve them.
I can see other property owners being against it, because it would drive down the prices of their homes.  As it stands I think home pricing is a complete fucked up retarded system that mostly depends on your neighbors house values.  The whole things is a shambles.  EDIT: also any new owner of the property is responsible for back taxes I think.  That's also extremely fucked up.
First of all, I've been out of college for over a decade, so good job on the assumptions. /s  Secondly, when calculating capital gains, you have to take into account the depreciation of the asset. As you would have it, a house owned for 20 years would be fully depreciated, and so no capital gains would apply to such a case.   But don't let facts or knowledge get in the way of your trolling, please.
It's the gifter who is liable for gift tax, not the recipient. The recipient just needs to file a certain form for reporting purposes if the gift exceeds a certain amount.
NO Even worse, most BTL(buy to let) lenders will not lend if you are going to be living in the property.    There are very few lenders that will touch something like this.    It is likely you will also need to use bridging for the time the building work takes at something like 1.5% per month! Try posting the question to http://www.propertytribes.com/ as there are a few UK mortgage experts on that site.
Pretend it was a gift all along, be happy that you could help out your family when they needed it and remember your lesson for the future.