vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
&gt;Are you saying they did commit fraud but it's hard too pin on any one person? You say there is little evidence there was fraud but that it's too hard to prove there was fraud. So what did they do if it wasn't fraud?  I am saying both. I am saying that as a general matter criminal fraud is difficult to prove and expensive to litigate. Fraud requires intent. You have to know or reasonably know that what you are doing is fraudulent and you do it anyway. Proving that mens rea is extremely difficult in this situation. Risky does not mean fraudulent. The entire market was bundling mortgage backed securities. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (government backed entities) were the largest buyers of MBS.  The point is that if the banks honestly believed that they MBS were secure and the regulators at the time did not see a problem with them - then how can you prove criminal fraud? We are only displaying hindsight bias because the subprime market did indeed implode and it did affect the wider mortgage market and the economy. But it wasn't known that would happen at the time. No financial models projected that everything would fail.  You can blame lack of foresight or whatever, but risky losses is not criminal. Corporations are allowed the business judgment rule which is arguably the strongest presumption in all of law. There were bad models, but they weren't fraudulent.   Now there could have been fraud in certain circumstances - but in no way was it systematic. It was bad modeling and bad economics.  Again, [Bernanke has multiple quotes](http://www.businessinsider.com/bernanke-quotes-2010-12?op=1) saying there was no problem. How can the bank's actions be fraudulent when the top regulator is saying nothing is wrong and the market is working as intended?
"I think this phrase originates from when it was common to have an assumable mortgage.  In that case, you would ""take over payments"" and the loan would become yours.   From Investopedia: Assumable Mortgage: A type of   financing arrangement in which the   outstanding mortgage and its terms can   be transferred from the current owner   to a buyer. By assuming the previous   owner's remaining debt, the buyer can   avoid having to obtain his or her own   mortgage."
"In the presence of a central bank, fractional reserve doesn't mean very much. In practice, the central bank bank supplies reserves, at some cost, in whatever quantity is demanded by the system. Reserves are just a cost of doing business for a bank, not something they'll run out of in any ""ponzi"" sense. I don't believe it's a case of people being duped.  I think sustainability is threatened not by fractional reserve and central banking but by the degree to which narrow banking has been mingled with more speculative finance."
Is there more information that I could review and become more knowledgeable about this type of scam? In response to this, anytime anyone ask you to send money, for a bank password, bank account numbers, etc...  It is most likely a scam.   For more education this search turned up an number of excellent resources.
"Care to elaborate? It is my understanding that any asset can be rehypothecated at least in theory. By saying these car loans ""aren't"" rehypo'd, do you mean this is not the practice, or that there is a law/regulation prohibiting it?"
Yet we are told, and I assumed, to be a profession of honor. I always thought of bankers as stodgy concervatives who DEMANDED a RESPONSIBLE borrower, not a daredevil trying to become ultra wealthy.  It was a service for growth, not a confidence scam. Too many people are chasing money/wealth as opposed to service and responsible growth. With our GROWTH in population we get a growth in greedy people and predators (and parasites) who's only wish is to obtain wealth for no cost.
"Ah, I just read a fascinating comparison between *gambling, investing, and trading* on either /r/foodforthought, /r/depthhub or maybe /r/truereddit. It reminded me a lot of the ""investors"" in Trump's projects.   My take on it is anyone putting money into one of his projects does so with the awareness of his track record, and is simply playing the game at that level. If they somehow haven't protected themselves against the possible loss of their ""investment"", that would be as silly as failing to carry health/homeowner/vehicle insurance.   One obvious response is to sue, alleging that Trump is evil, and that he intentionally stole money from his hapless investors. Finance at that level is a strategy game. He happens to be a skilled player, and especially adapt at extracting himself from seemingly losing positions. Personally, I wouldn't play at his table."
Moreover, it is entirely possible in a gold-denominated currency for everyone to *keep* those promises, since the gold, like any currency, just keeps changing hands and cycling through the economy. Your example of ""gold certificates"" is exactly equivalent to privately-arranged contracts/promises to produce a certain amount of gold on completion. It's promises all the way down, unless we insist on instant cash-transactions, e.g., literally handing an employee a dollar's worth of gold every five minutes, or whatever. If the employee is counting on the good-faith of the employer to settle up at the end of the day or week, then we have a fractional-reserve system whether decreed or not. When you buy an iPhone or a laptop, someone had to dig up the stuff to make it, out of the ground. When you buy a cheeseburger, someone had to grow wheat and someone else had to raise and kill a cow. It's not a reasonable proposition that they should wait for you to show up with a bag of gold before doing those things, in this day and age. We trade in promises and IOUs. Sometimes that backfires, sometimes catastrophically. But it's remarkable how well it *does* work, most of the time, and how much better it works than the times and places where people had to trade physical goods for physical goods. This is not an argument against a gold-backed currency."
&gt; Wait, so you can travel to see clients but can't travel to visit companies/do research? Don't clients respect alpha over face time?  Sounds like absolutely typical financial company behavior.  Especially with the research showing that active management (i.e., that alpha you mention) is only a product of luck anyways.
© THE FINANCIAL TIMES LTD 2017. FT and ‘Financial Times’ are trademarks of The Financial Times Ltd. The Financial Times and its journalism are subject to a self-regulation regime under the FT Editorial Code of Practice. CloseFinancial Times UK Edition Switch to International Edition Top sections Home World Show more World links UK Show more UK links Companies Show more Companies links Markets Show more Markets links Opinion Show more Opinion links Work &amp; Careers Show more Work &amp; Careers links Life &amp; Arts Show more Life &amp; Arts links Personal Finance Show more Personal Finance links Science Special Reports FT recommends Lex Alphaville EM Squared Lunch with the FT Video Podcasts Blogs News feed Newsletters myFT Portfolio Today's Newspaper (ePaper) Crossword Help Centre My Account Sign Out
The separation hasn't existed for a long time. I'm not an expert on the subject but it was a gradual process. Money mutual funds invest in repos and even unsecured instruments that fund investment banking activities and that has been around since way before Glass-Steagall was repealed completely. When it morphed into the shadow banking system we know and love today, who knows? What we can be sure of is that retail, insured deposits were being used to fund investment banking decades prior to the 2000 commodity futures modernization act or w/e its called.
I believe so (that you can, not that you are greedy) I run my own business and, generally speaking, am 'charging' my company 40p per mile as per the quote above. I did not know about the ability to claim the shortfall, as it is not relevant to me, but it makes perfect sense and I'm sure that a phone call to HMRC will help you understand how to claim.  As for the greedy question - personally I think that laws are there for a reason (both ways) so if there's money to be claimed - there's no reason not to do so, unless of course the hassle is greater than the potential gain. One last note - not sure exactly what the rules around this are, but I know that the allowance is not applicable for one's general commute and so if you're travelling to the same place over 40% of the time for more than two years you are no longer allowed to claim these miles.
"DirectGov has a good overview here: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/TaxOnPropertyAndRentalIncome/DG_4017814 and answers to your specific questions here: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/TaxOnPropertyAndRentalIncome/DG_10013435 In short, you do need to declare the rental income on your tax return and will need to pay tax on it (and note that only the mortgage interest (not the full repayment) is deductible as an ""allowable expense"", see the full list of what is deductible here: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/TaxOnPropertyAndRentalIncome/DG_10014027 )."
Deduction for Health Checkup is allowed under Section 80D and is allowed to everyone whether Salaried or Business/Professional. However, Exemption for Medical Reimbursement of Rs. 15000 is allowed under a different section.  A salaried employee can take benefit of both Medical Reimbursement of Rs. 15,000 as well as Preventive Health Check-up of Rs. 5,000.  Source: Tax Deduction for Health Check-up
You can defer RRSP deductions to future years. So, if you purchase $20,000 in RRSPs this year but had no income, you could use this to offset your income next year when you are making, say, $100,000. For more details, see Deferring claim of significant purchase of RRSPs Note that I strongly advise you ensure you have sufficient emergency funds prior to purchasing RRSPs.
First, you need to see if you actually qualify as a dependent under IRS rules; in short: While there may be exceptions to the cohabitation rule, I am not sure what those could be.  The takeaway is that if your parent is wishing to claim you as a dependent, they must be responsible for supporting the majority of your living expenses (e.g. food and shelter). If this is the case, then the next question is to look at how the impact of the exemptions play out.  In your situation, I would guess that your mother is correct:  your taxable income is likely to be so low that if you do not take an exemption for yourself, you probably would still have zero or minimal tax liability; but if you mother claims you as a dependent, she will be able to take a deduction. In the case of your grants and loans, the loans should not be taxable income since these need to be repaid (presumably, with future earnings).  Federal grants may be taxable--basically, the portion of the grant that is used solely for paying educational expenses toward a specific degree (tuition and books) is non-taxable, but the remainder may be subject to tax. As for tax credits, you would need to see how much you would get and how they would apply to you.  The bottom line is, there are too many variables to say for certain what the best approach would be, so both your and your mother's returns must be prepared under each scenario (you as her dependent, versus you claiming a personal exemption).
"I doubt they'll be paying them anything, just like Google itself pays Wikipedia nothing for showing Wikipedia snippets in its result boxes. Wikipedia's license actually doesn't require any money to reuse it, and with things like data dumps and a public API, it actually encourages this. Of course then you have large companies leeching off of your hard-built volunteer project, but that's par for the course for open source in general and anything more restrictive would harm the exact people you're targeting (saying for example that ""companies with more than x employees must pay"" is actually something a lot of services do, but it's by definition not truly Free since it comes with restrictions).  On your note about begging readers for donations, Wikipedia refuses to put up ads because that would force them into a conflict of interest (say large company A that is a large customer doesn't like how their article portrays them and threatens to pull their ads) You become beholden to whoever pays the bills, so it makes sense to ask readers to support the project. You might've heard some hogwash spreading around that Wikipedia already has enough money, but that's not true considering a prudent non-profit needs a sizable reserve to protect against fluctuations or disasters, and for long-term stability. Not to mention the project is nowhere near the size it started at and is still growing."
"This will be interesting. He sued under Title VII, which has a clear exception for religious organizations.   [42 USC § 2000E–1](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000e-1) &gt; (a) Inapplicability of subchapter to certain aliens and employees of religious entities  However, these are **nonprofits** like Worldvision, Boy Scouts, YMCA and even hospitals that produce a ""nonsecular"" product. Selling lightbulbs ... not so much."
Protest opinions aside. Will taking this away from the team's actually help?  The article mentions rent payments they make. Are they actually renting space he owns or do they subsidize it as a sort of here's some extra money type thing?   According to the article excluding what they call rent payments leaves about 12 million. Would the economic stimulus from that not out weigh what they would get from cutting him off?
"If you are living together 'casually' (no formal partnership agreement) then my option would be to ask her politely to as she has offered make a contribution  by buying the groceries or some such which you share. A 'voluntary contribution' not an enforceable one. Just as between flat mates where only one is the actual tenant of the flat but the tenancy allows 'sharing' . Check your tenancy allows you to share lodgings. PS An old Scots saying is ""never do business with close family"". I.e do not charge your wife or living in partner rent. It mixes emotional domestic life with a formal business life which can set feuds going in case of a break up or dispute. If you enter into child bearing relationship or parent hood or formal partnership or marriage then all this changes at some time in the future."
From HSA Resources -  I understand that I can reimburse myself from my HSA for qualified medical expenses that I pay out-of-pocket but is there a time limit? Do I need to reimburse myself in the same year? You have your entire lifetime to reimburse yourself. As long as you had your HSA established at the time the expense was incurred, you save the receipt and it was not otherwise reimbursed, you can reimburse yourself for the expense from your HSA even years later. The important thing not asked or mentioned above is that the HSA must be in place before the expense occurred. In your case, should the LASIK procedure be before the HSA is established, it's not an eligible expense.
"&gt;I think tax and spending reform would go a long way to allieviating the ""upward"" flow of capital over the last few years.  Probably. The problem is that laws are written by and for these guys, and not against them. I don't see how such a reform can ever pass."
Renting your property out at less than market rates is a form of charity. Your heart says that this is the right thing to do, your bank account says no. And so does your wife. This isn't a question for the Money stack exchange, I think ... But since you are asking here:
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/08/case-consumption-tax.html) reduced by 87%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; You often hear calls out there - mostly from Right economists but also from some on the Left - for a consumption tax in the U.S. As presented, it&amp;#039;s a super-simple idea: tally your income, subtract your saving, and what&amp;#039;s left is your consumption.  &gt; The tuition line raises a particularly vexing question, and brings us back to the second question: what economic effects would we see from a consumption tax, under various accounting and taxation rules? Clearly, if you tax tuition, you discourage education.  &gt; A consumption tax, compared to, say, a wealth tax or a land-value tax, is a direct assault on GDP and GDP growth.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6txd1l/the_case_against_a_consumption_tax/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~191594 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*: **consumption**^#1 **Save**^#2 **tax**^#3 **account**^#4 **family**^#5"
"I've found at various times we've spent a lot less when we've been absorbed by ""cheap pastimes"" or passions, such as: It's incredible how fast some things can burn through your money:"
If it turns out that you do want to help pay the tax bill (after answering all the questions above), I say cash out those funds. You are apparently very young with a long work life ahead (lucky you). Step aside from the actual money part of it for a moment. What does your Mom want? What do you really want to do about this? Is it from love that you want to help but are afraid it's a bad financial decision? Or is it from a feeling of duty and you deep down don't really want to spend your savings on Mom's tax bill. - If you really do want to help and you have the wherewithall to do so, then do it. Otherwise don't. You can recover financially. - I myself have had my retirement savings go to nearly zero 3 times. The first time I recovered pretty easily. The second time, not so easily. I'm just starting on the recovery path for the 3rd time at age 58 and I highly doubt I ever will recover this time. I didn't cash out on purpose but the stock market was not friendly. - My main point is to figure out truly what you want.
PA local taxes are a little tricky at times, but they do have resources to help taxpayers out. The link below is a good place to start, it provides a step by step guideline to go about your local taxes.  The Address search application will tell you which locals you would need to file returns with as well as the tax rates. There are links at the bottom of the page with links to the forms and instructions. The forms are relatively easy to fill out. Act 32 For Employees/Self-Employed
Here are some possibilities: avoid buying a car for as long as you can; if forced to own one, buy a used dependable car like a Toyota Corolla- 4 cyl  and don't abuse it.  open a Roth IRA, depositing max possible, the plan on doing so until you've investing the remaining balance. A Roth IRA, while not tax deductible now (you're in a low tax bracket now) will provide for tax-free distributions when you are both older and not in a low bracket. of course, invest in low cost equity funds.   Come back for more ideas once the dust settles, you've got money left over and some of the above accomplished. You've got one asset many of us don't have: time.
"&gt;Those roads, schools, police were all funded just fine before this debate started  Um no, no they weren't.  Ever heard of the deficit?  &gt;We have a spending problem not a revenue problem  that's like, your opinion man.  &gt;He's not suggesting that he shouldn't pay any taxes at all, just not INCREASED taxes or liabilities  So taxes are ok but they can't EVER go up?  Why not?  Maybe the current rate isn't the best rate.   All I'm saying is I think it's selfish to say ""I'm going to fire you if my profit goes down"" It's not like he can't continue to run the company and make money, he's just going to make less money.  He's already rich.  So in my mind, that's kinda selfish."
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/07/can-an-lvt-save-us/) reduced by 93%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; They amended their LVT to add a tax on property improvements but should have done the opposite - increase the LVT and reduce other taxes.  &gt; By adopting an LVT, they guarantee themselves sufficient income to provide government and public services - without falling into the predatory clutches of international bankers and the IMF. In his 2011 book Re-Solving the Economic Puzzle, Walter Rybeck relates how the US contemplated LVT enabling legislation during the Carter administration.  &gt; Five other states have passed LVT enabling legislation - Connecticut, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington - to make it easier for local communities to adopt an LVT. Other American communities that have already benefited from an LVT include California&amp;#039;s Central Valley, Fairhope in Alabama, Arden in Delaware, and Pittsburgh and other cities in Pennsylvania.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6hxn1x/can_an_lvt_save_us_dissident_voice/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~146992 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*: **LVT**^#1 **Land**^#2 **economic**^#3 **Harrison**^#4 **Tax**^#5"
"One of my New Year's resolutions a few years ago was to give up New Year's resolutions.  It's the only resolution I've kept.   Why wait until Jan. 1 to do something?  Jan. 1 is just another day of the year. I'm thinking of going lightly into treasury bills next year. Never mind the small returns, at least I won't be spending the money unwisely. You will be giving your money to the government so they can spend it unwisely.  I don't think there is anything wise about that.  You are also implicitly lobbying for future taxes since the government will have to tax people to pay back your treasuries.  Surely there are ""wiser"" places to put your money."
This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit.    - [/r/Shitstatistssay] [Wages Have Fallen Because Politicians and Corporations Only Care About Short-Term Profits Not Long Term Visibility](http://np.reddit.com/r/Shitstatistssay/comments/2dgfcc/wages_have_fallen_because_politicians_and/)   *^If ^you ^follow ^any ^of ^the ^above ^links, ^respect ^the ^rules ^of ^reddit ^and ^don't ^vote ^or ^comment. ^Questions? ^Abuse? [^Message ^me ^here.](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmeta_bot_mailbag)*
"[Trump1.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/12/09/the-six-donors-trump-appointed-to-his-administration-gave-almost-12-million-with-their-families-to-his-campaign-and-the-party/?utm_term=.4f6b79680e9e)    [Trump2.](http://www.alternet.org/right-wing/trumps-single-biggest-donor-robert-mercer-has-merciless-political-agenda)    [Trump3.](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/trumps-self-funding-lie/482691/)    [Trump4.](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/19/us/politics/trump-inauguration-sheldon-adelson-fundraising.html)    Should I go on?  Just because Hillary got more big money hardly means Trump didn't have his share of the 20%.  But facts are stubborn things, no?      I really hope you are enjoying this really shitty time in American history by lying to yourself thinking that he represents ""the people""."
"In most cases you cannot do ""reverse lookup"" on tax id in the US. You can verify, but for that you need to have more than just the FEIN/SSN. You should also have a name, and some times address. Non-profits, specifically, have to publish their EIN to donors, so it may be easier than others to identify those. Other businesses may not be as easy to find just by EIN."
"You may be confused on what ""non-profit"" actually means. I'd encourage you read up on the difference between the non-profit and for profit.   Since I don't know your business I cannot even begin to recommend what is right for you.    As a side note, the NFL was a non-profit for awhile (not sure if they still are).  With some fancy paperwork you can be too."