vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"&gt; I said it wasn't perfect for the long run.  Forget about long-run. It was clear from day one that the ACA is far from perfect.   &gt; But obstructing and causing it to fail is very different from ""fixing"" it.  LOL!!!!!! So you want to pump more money into something you admitted is not good?  Just wait for Trump and his admin to change the plan and then we will talk.  The ""obstructions"" are not by Trump. They are by traitor republicans who suddenly want to keep the ACA."
That's a fair point, but the article specifically mentions opioids and given the broad strokes the first commenter was using, I thought it might be good to give some perspective as to why that viewpoint might miss some pretty important nuances.
Yes, do not consider the CFA Program unless you are a fourth year university student - even then it is an over achievement at that moment in one's career. That being said, saying you are sitting for the CFA Level I exam in the future can be a differentiator for competitive entry level jobs out of undergraduate.
"Yes I agree, I remember the British Airways flight I took to Florida when I was 13 for the family holiday and idiots were rushing the gate when they weren't called. Eventually the gate agent got so pissed off he made an example of this stupid middle aged man who was trying to act all entitled in the style of ""LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THIS MAN HERE IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF SOMEONE WHO ARRIVES AT THE GATE WHEN THEIR ZONE IS **NOT** CALLED, AS A RESULT OF THIS YOU WILL BE BOARDING THE AIRCRAFT LAST SIR"" or words to that effect. He tried arguing against a piece of paper, you can't really win...  Also usually gate agents and checkin desks are staffed by airline services companies like Menzies Aviation as far as I know, I'm not sure if that's relevant however."
**Here's a sneak peek of /r/CFA using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/CFA/top/?sort=top&amp;t=year) of the year!**  \#1: [EXAM COMPLETION UPVOTE PARTY](https://np.reddit.com/r/CFA/comments/6f1beo/exam_completion_upvote_party/)   \#2: [Hubby just got his email at 3:57pm EST that he passed level 2! He's over 40 and did it with a family of 4 to support and still run his business! Super proud!](https://np.reddit.com/r/CFA/comments/6piv2b/hubby_just_got_his_email_at_357pm_est_that_he/)   \#3: [Level 3 passing upvote party!](https://np.reddit.com/r/CFA/comments/6sdmi5/level_3_passing_upvote_party/)  ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| [^^Contact ^^me](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| [^^Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| [^^Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/6l7i0m/blacklist/)
I took a look at a lot of these products while doing some work for a non-profit. We ended up going with a hosted solution called [Thinkific](https://www.thinkific.com/). Good product, reasonable pricing, and responsive support. I think they've got a free trial iirc.  (I'm not associated with them in any way.)
Nothing at [their investor relations site](http://investor.physiciansformula.com/), nothing in [Yahoo! Finance](http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=face&amp;ql=1), nothing in [Google Finance](http://www.google.com/finance?q=face), nothing listed by my broker, no new or changed analyst coverage, and only [one regular news item](http://www.marketwatch.com/story/hba-global-announces-finalists-for-the-beauty-industrys-2012-international-package-design-awards-ipda-2012-05-15) about being a finalist in a packaging design competition... not exactly material. Any other places I should be looking?
"You're conflating LLC with Corporation. They're different animals. LLC does not have ""S"" or ""C"" designations, those are just for corporations. I think what you're thinking about is electing pass through status with the IRS. This is the easiest way to go. The company can pay you at irregular intervals in irregular amounts. The IRS doesn't care about these payments. The company will show profit or loss at the end of the year (those payments to you aren't expenses and don't reduce your profit). You report this on your schedule C and pay tax on that amount. (Your state tax authority will have its own rules about how this works.) Alternatively you can elect to have the LLC taxed as a corporation. I don't know of a good reason why someone in your situation would do this, but I'm not an accountant so there may be reasons out there. My recommendation is to get an accountant to prepare your taxes. At least once -- if your situation is the same next year you can use the previous year's forms to figure out what you need to fill in. The investment of a couple hundred dollars is worthwhile. On the question of buying a home in the next couple of years... yes, it does affect things. (Pass through status? Probably doesn't affect much.) If all of your income is coming from self-employment, be prepared for hassles when you are shopping for a mortgage. You can ask around, maybe you have a friendly loan officer at your credit union who knows your history. But in general they will want to see at least two years of self-employment tax returns. You can plan for this in advance: talk to a couple of loan officers now to see what the requirements will be. That way you can plan to be ready when the time comes."
Will the taxpayers be given a refund on their tax bills if this deal goesn't through?  What else will the tax dollars be spent on ?  The reality is, either the state can invest in things that create jobs, or they can spend on things that create nothing.
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.dnsassociates.co.uk/blog/bitcoins-tax-implications-uk) reduced by 92%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Tax practices of bitcoin activities in UK The HMRC guidelines on the tax treatment of transactions relating to the sale or use of bitcoins and other similar cryptocurrencies are applicable for bitcoin.  &gt; Different taxes and their activities concerning bitcoins In the case of activities concerning bitcoins and other cryptocurrencies, the taxes like income tax, corporation tax and capital gains tax transactions will hinge on the very activities taking place and the parties involved, in the similar way as transactions involving a normal currency, such as sterling, are decided.  &gt; No special instructions are there for income tax, corporation tax and capital gain tax for the transactions relating to bitcoins.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/72z5sg/bitcoin_tax_in_the_uk_explained/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~218069 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*: **bitcoin**^#1 **tax**^#2 **activity**^#3 **currency**^#4 **transaction**^#5"
"As the OP expressed their thought it seemed to me they were suggesting anyones (or rather anyone who is ""Rich"" however *that* is defined*) non-invested money be taxed at this high rate and that strikes me as hopelessly naive. You don't think they would leave the country or ""invest it"" in a savings account earning .05% (or most likely spread across many so it was FDIC insured)?   &gt; I bet the rich would find something to do with that idle cash overnight if it was taxed at a 75% rate or so.    They were basically suggesting the US government sieze the savings of wealthy people.   The question of whether the highest effective tax rate **on income** should be raised is  a completely different discussion. Personally I favor a higher tax rate and some new tax brackets for the very highest earners. I don't really think it's necessarily *fair* in a progressive system to treat the rich as a ""piggy bank"" but it is what it is. They benefit the most so they are called to contribute the most.   I think I'd favor some kind of Alternative Minimum Tax for rich people so they had to pay a minimum of 30ish% of their income above some sort of cap (5 million per year? 100 million per year?) and capital gains  applied. This would close the Buffet loophole.   My biggest reason for this though is not because I don't think they *deserve* their money. It's because bottomless coffers basically guarantee that the legislation will be written for them and by them. There is always this tension between the poor and middle class that want more services and the upper class that wants to pay less taxes.   I am starting to get to the point where I think it might be better to have a smaller government (and less services) because they abuse their power (and our money) so much. ACTA, SOPA, NDAA, warrantless wiretaps, Afghanistan and Iraq wars, etc. I *do* like the idea of social safety nets but perhaps those should be more local.   Anyways, sorry for the wall of text."
The article says nothing.  It is a bunch of cube dwellers crunching numbers.  Does Wisconsin want to invest state dollars in private industry or not?  If not, keep spending your taxes on pensions and healthcare.  God forbid we invested OUR money in something that could, I dunno, produce wealth for someone other than the state?
&gt; Its a no, there should be no taxes on anyone, only service providers and voluntary customers.  Last time you made this claim I pointed you to [a video on the US's Articles of Confederation](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6rHSiN0vKk) and you never responded.  Perhaps you'll muster up the courage this time.  The Articles of Confederation was set up very similar to what you are proposing.  Why do you think that government failed?
&gt; This constant belief that services should cost a percentage instead of a fixed rate that everyone pays is a joke.  Your position makes good sense but if everyone paid a fixed rate in taxes then about %25 of the people would go broke.  It doesn't seem fair that someone working within the system is bankrupted by the system.  Seems to me we need to first fix unfairness in wages.  Anyone who works full time for the system should at least be able to afford a modest life including health care, retirement, and taxes.  Then I think it is right to demand they pay taxes to the system.  Would you agree?
Generically, interest rates being charged are driven in large part by the central bank's rate and competition tends to keep similar loans priced fairly close to each other. Interest rates being paid are driven by what's needed to get folks to lend you their money (deposit in bank, purchase bonds) so it's again related. There certainly isn't very direct coupling, but in general interest rates of all sorts do tend to swing (very) roughly in the same direction at (very) roughly the same time... so the concept that interest rates of all types are rising or falling at any given moment is a simplification but not wholly unreasonable. If you want to know which interest rates a particular person is citing to back up their claim you really need to ask them.
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/30/16220134/universal-basic-income-roosevelt-institute-economic-growth) reduced by 95%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; A full universal basic income, in which every adult gets $1,000 a month A partial basic income, in which every adult gets $500 a month A child allowance, in which every child gets $250 a month They find that enacting any of these policies by growing the federal debt - that is, without raising taxes to pay for it - would substantially grow the economy.  &gt; Thus, they find that a full $12,000 a year per adult basic income, paid for with progressive income taxes, would grow the economy by about 2.62 percent and expand the labor force by about 1.1 million people.  &gt; Correspondingly, enacting big tax increases to pay for a basic income would be predicted to hurt the economy.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6x0avf/study_a_universal_basic_income_would_grow_the/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~201279 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*: **tax**^#1 **income**^#2 **percent**^#3 **economy**^#4 **taxes**^#5"
"That article is over a year old and at the tail end of the largest recession in 50 years. It is based on Census data, but since they don't say which data it is not clear where they got their information. Do you have anything from this past moth or so?  Looking at the Census website, [here is the Census page with data](http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/), and if you open the top link titled ""Table H-1. Income Limits for Each Fifth and Top 5 Percent  •All Races [XLS - 45k]"" you'll see that there is a slight blip in income level but as of 2010 almost every quintile is wthin $1000/yr of an all time high. Feel free to browse and analyze their datasets, but it does not look bad.  So let's find more recent data: BLS tracks such items, such as the [National Compensation Survey](http://www.bls.gov/ncs/tables.htm) , the [Labor Force Statistics](http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswktabs.htm) and the [CUrrent Population Survey](http://www.bls.gov/cps/tables.htm#weekearn), among others. I am too tired to dig through this. I already posted the Census data, and it is old and shows signs on increase, and plenty from BLS that I have dug up in other posts shows that real income most definitley has not declined for *decades*. At worst people have incomes similar to 2005, and it seems most quintiles are back to an all time high for real compensation."
&gt;  Business Insider analyzed data from the 2015 American Community Survey, an annual survey by the US Census Bureau that talks to 1% of all US ***households*** about various economic, social, and housing demographics.   Emphasis mine.  Why are they comparing incomes of *individuals* to *households*? Is it just clickbait or is there a point?
How am I not asserting my argument? You are the one using false equivalency as a debate style.  Two can play at that game, if you like the state so much then just move to North Korea. If you don't like North Korea and would rather live here, then just give all of your money to the IRS then.
&gt;I nowhere mentioned equal amount of assets. The point of my argument was wealth disparity. And, unless the rich pay more in taxes; that disparity will grow.  Do you know what these words mean? The wealth disparity is literally the difference in amount of assets.  In fact, you literally need a 100% marginal tax rate to prevent a divergence in disparity using your models.
"Not to be rude, but I think you have an extremely naive view of how the United States operates. Insurance and Health Care are the exact same thing in this country for 99.9% of the people in it. The reason for this is that there is no way that anyone can afford ""healthcare"" without an insurance company unless they are in the top .1%. That is the way the system was set up, and it results in millions being uninsured and millions more being uninsurable.  I am not an ignorant person, but clearly it makes you feel superior to say it, so carry on. You have no idea what you are talking about, or whom you are talking to."
You missed the point of my post entirely. I don't have an issue with Walmarts tax rate, I'm stating that if all their employee's unionized and demanded livable wages that the corporation could pay them without even losing 20% of their net profits.  At that point, perhaps the U.S. govt wouldn't have to pay the est 3 billion in assistance payments these employee's currently get.  Comes down to making a company pay it's work force. Don't even imply that it would hurt their bottom line. It wouldn't.
"&gt; Everything isn't about you?  I'm Ron Burgundy?  &gt; Do statistics only matter when they correlate directly to you?  No, but they have to directly relate to *someone*!  Median income represents no individual.  These collective statistics are a meaningless metric when looking at providing a life for yourself and your family.  These ""news"" articles are meaningless.  What is the purpose here?  The ""middle class"" is poorer!  What does that even mean?  What are you trying to say?  This is nothing but a distraction, all to earn clicks to get ad money."
"It would appear that you are not actually ""equal"" partners.  You have differently valued interests and those values fluctuate based on individual performance.  The TurboTax advice is simplified for entities that don't track interests relative to partner inputs. IRC § 704(a), partner's distributive share is set by the partnership agreement, and § 704(b), failing an allocation by the agreement it is set by the partner's interest in the partnership.  But note § 704(b)(2), which prevents blatant tax-rigging in the partnership agreement."
&gt; who owns walmart? shareholders - people. your neighbors. who benefits from their lower prices - same.   Great, same people that are doing well right now.  Nothing changes if they are less greedy and more helpful to their workers.  &gt; im a libertarian.  Yeah yeah, everyone is 'free' to do whatever.  People can get jobs elsewhere.  Prices can still be low and people can still make tons of money, just slightly less money for those at the top and slightly more for those at the bottom rungs.  Like I said, it just boils down to treating your workers fairly.  &gt; your arguments are the same as those who support trade barriers, tariffs, etc.   Not really, but I don't think those things are necessarily bad if they serve to stop abuse or cheating.
As Dilip commented, the Social Security web site is pretty comprehensive.  Understanding Supplemental Security Income SSI Income has the details you are looking for.  It's a convoluted equation. You lose SSI at a pretty fast rate as earned income rises. The system is not kind to those who qualify for SSI but try to earn some money to cover their needs.
Let me offer what I did in a similar situation - Two points (a) we were banking $20K/yr or so to the cash fund, 2 good incomes, and the ability to go indefinitely on just one of the 2. (b) A HELOC that was prime-1.5%.   The result was to mentally treat the HELOC as our emergency fund, but to enjoy the interest savings of over $16,500/yr for the $100K that had a sub-1% return.  When I first referenced this story, I came under criticism. Fair enough, it's not for everyone. Let's jump ahead. We owe $228K @3.5%. We had tapped the equity line for brief periods, but never over $20,000. When we lost our jobs, both of us, we had hit our number and are semi-retired now. Our retirement budget included the current mortgage payment, so we are in line for that dropping out of the budget in 12 years, and starting social security after that, which I did not include as part of the budget.  Note - when we lost our jobs, the severance was 6 month's pay, and we collected unemployment as well. The first 12 months were covered without tapping our retirement funds at all. So, to Nick's point (and excellent answer) our first line of defense against unemployment was this combination of severance and unemployment insurance.
But they did have the accident.  The insurance is in case they become unemployed which they did.  If you want to come up with some alternative concept called destitution insurance or some such then go for it.  So far that has turned out to be both technically and politically impossible.
Better suited to /r/personalfinance, but your first step should be to find a new job. Don't wait to get canned in 60 days, do it now.  Other than that, don't spend any money you don't need to. You're in a good spot because not everyone has the luxury of knowing 60 days in advance that their position will be eliminated.
&gt;To those moaning about loss of jobs, is this really a job you want to fight to keep?   Where should youth labor go with such jobs going away?  I am not pushing to keep such jobs but such jobs are primary for youth labor.  And without such jobs where are they going to get their first job?
And he doesn't forfeit any of his earned retirement benefits. Finally, I would like to share one last thing with you and your father. These benefits aren't free - he has been paying a portion of his paycheck for decades into Social Security, and now he is eligible for the maximum amount of benefits per month that he will qualify for - and if he wants to keep working he loses no benefit and the amount could potentially even go up. That's up to him. But not filing for benefits now will mean that all this money he's been paying in for decades will just be lost - they'll basically just be a tax he's paid out to other retirees. His estate (which means you kids) won't get any of it, either. That'd just be a waste for everyone involved. If you have continued doubts or questions, I wouldn't hesitate to consult a specialist lawyer or talk with the SSA directly to make sure this is all correct. It's his money, and he has earned his benefits for many years. I very much hope he gets to enjoy as much of them as he can!"
"&gt; So I don't really see the point when that revenue will possibly not even exist.  The state is trading revenue that possibly will not exist for revenue that definitely will not exist. That is a cost.  (And saying the revenue ""possibly will not exist"" is a huge overstatement. Most of those people would find work in other areas.)"
Minimum wage goes up --&gt; some workers are eliminated/reduced --&gt; new hiring slows --&gt; wait --&gt; disposable income increases among those still employed --&gt; demand increases --&gt; employment goes up.   How is this confusing?   If anything still needs to be considered, it's what percentage increase of the minimum wage will most efficiently counteract the corresponding percentage drop in income from related lost wages.
Like I said up above - ya got a spouse with cancer who has no health insurance if you leave your job - you don't leave your job.   Also, our expenses in general here in L.A. are so insanely high.  We have never been able to save substantial money.  I think we're responsible for our own happiness, but we are also responsible for people we have to take care of, be they kids, spouses, etc.
That's the big debate. Whether or not there is an employment crisis. I don't believe there will be an Armageddon as so many are claiming.   The question you're asking is the same question that's been asked for 100s of years. What happens when these jobs are gone? What happens when the majority of society is agrarian and we invent the tractor with GPS?   The comparisons to previous technological advancements ARE valid. They DID replace humans. The US economy was largely agricultural. 50%+.  These people were REPLACED and now only 1% of jobs are agricultural. These was no economic melt down.   People said the same thing about the computer - we've lived with computers for over 40 years.   Here's the thing - when you are able to produce things more efficiently, their prices go down. That opens up room for other spending in people's lives. Did you know that in the 1900s, food was 45% of the household budget? Now it is around 15%.
To me, the simple answer might be to tap the equity in the $400k home you owe $77k on and use the proceeds to purchase the new retirement home. Even if you were to do that, you'd still have almost $100k in untapped equity in the existing home, no mortgage on the retirement home, nothing out of pocket (other than refi fees), and probably no more of a mortgage payment than you already have on the house with equity.  I don't see any reason why the bank wouldn't go for that, especially if you've got a good payment history on your existing mortgage. I hope this helps. Good luck!
If your refunds are subject to seizure because of certain debt arrears, it makes sense to let the IRS hold onto them until next year.