Some types of loans allow for reamortization (recasting) - which does exactly what you're talking about (making a big payment and then refiguring the monthly amount rather than the overall lifespan), without requiring any kind of a fee that refinancing does. Not every, or even most, mortgages, allow for recasting. And most that do offer recasting, may limit the recasting to a once-a-loan type of thing. So check beforehand, and make those big payments before you do any recasting. (Most banks and mortgage servicing companies may not advertise or even speak about recasting options unless you specifically ask your loan officer.)


> Why Are There So Many Women in Public Relations?  because SEX SELLS (buyers)  my first marketing manager position with a good budget, the CEO wanted to help me by bringing in an agency.  he selected an agency where the owner was a friend.  in comes the owner and **5 fabulous babes** dressed in amazing clothing  they were expensive (their work) but they sure were great to look at  a few years later, that first agency owner got into drugs so we got another.  so in walks this next owner and **4 fabulous babes**, even better looking than the first batch  may be anecdotal, but that's what I saw


There are a few standard ways: One thing to keep in mind is that you'll usually be charged a wire and/or service fee for the tranfer.


Congratulations! I would start with an attorney. As a 17 year old, you legally cannot sign contracts, so you're going to have to setup some sort of structure with your parents first. Get attorney references -- your parents can ask around at work, if you're friendly with any business owners, ask them, etc. Talk to a few and pick someone who you are comfortable with. Ask your attorney for advice re: sole proprietor/S-Corp/LLC. You have assets, and your parents presumably have some assets, so you need advice about isolating your business from the rest of your life. Do the same thing for accountant references, but ask your attorney for a reference as well.


You really don't know how it works. Clinton asked for a version of the bill without this and also requested a line item veto option. He got neither so he signed it holding his nose. This was pushed by one republican who fooled everyone.. Do you remember his name?


This is called imputed income, which is generally not taxed in the US.


Right. That's what I was implying Chamaths words meant as well.  I felt like his words were a justification for Amazons crazy high P/E ratio compared to its competitors.  Because it has the potential to be a monopoly in the future.   The author on the other hand was implying that Amazon is currently a monopoly which is simply not true


"Dividends are a way of distributing profits from operating a business to the business owners. Why would you call it ""wasting money"" is beyond me. Decisions about dividend distribution are made by the company based on its net revenue and the needs of future capital. In some jurisdictions (the US, for example), the tax policy discourages companies from accumulating too much earnings without distributing dividends, unless they have a compelling reason to do so. Stock price is determined by the market. The price of a stock is neither expensive nor cheap on its own, you need to look at the underlying company and the share of it that the stock represents. In case of Google, according to some analysts, the price is actually quite cheap. The analyst consensus puts the target price for the next 12 months at $921 (vs. current $701)."


Company was founded as a co-op.  If the company has a loss, you get negative patronage. Basically, it is a paper loss until the company can erase it with profits. However, you would have to pay it off you left the company before it was positive. That's my understanding. The company has only been profitable since I have been here.  If the company were to go bankrupt and didn't have enough assets to pay everyone, first it would pay taxes, then (if there was money) it would pay secured lenders, then unsecured lenders, then preferred shareholders, and finally, in the unlikely event that there was any money left, the workers would get paid back the value of their common stock.


The one thing missing from all your accusations?  The word 'allegedly'.  It's clear evidence is not required for you to make up your mind.  It's ironic that you compared me to a creationist when you're the one who subsists entirely on second hand heresy and ignores over a decade of rigorous testing because it doesn't support your narrative.


Contrary to popular belief, you can build your credit (if that is important to you) without paying a penny in interest.  This is done through the responsible use of credit cards, paying the bill in full each month without accruing any interest charges. If I were you, I would pay off the loan today, if possible.  After that, if you decide you need to build up your credit, apply for a credit card.  If you have difficulty with that, you can get a small secured credit card or retail store credit card until you have enough history to get a regular credit card.


Yeah dumbfuck, as someone with a decade of education I think hard work and good decisions don't help with success. lol. This is where your kind just always goes off the fucking rails. You have to hyperbolize every goddamn thing to the point that you're only on the extremist edges. Ideologically based. Not data driven statistics. I think [this](https://www.mixcloud.com/rationallyspeaking/rationally-speaking-165-robert-frank-on-success-and-luck/) might get it across far better than I ever could. But seeing successful people as stubborn as you and bright hard working people struggle to get out of the gutter leaves a bad taste in ones mouth.


"When the strike price ($25 in this case) is in-the-money, even by $0.01, your shares will be sold the day after expiration if you take no action. If you want to let your shares go,. allow assignment rather than close the short position and sell the long position...it will be cheaper that way. If you want to keep your shares you must buy back the option prior to 4Pm EST on expiration Friday. First ask yourself why you want to keep the shares. Is it to write another option? Is it to hold for a longer term strategy? Assuming this is a covered call writing account, you should consider ""rolling"" the option. This involves buying back the near-term option and selling the later date option of a similar or higher strike. Make sure to check to see if there is an upcoming earnings report in the latter month because you may want to avoid writing a call in that situation. I never write a call when there's an upcoming ER prior to expiration. Good luck. Alan"


If you have a PO Box, the system may want your PO Box zip and PO Box number instead of your street address.  I tried many times and it wouldn't work, but when I used my PO Box zip and PO Box number (as street number), it finally worked.  Thanks, Powersurge!


"Your first and second paragraphs are two different cases. Moving money between a checking account and a savings account will credit Cash and debit Cash, making a GL transaction unnecessary, unless the amounts in the two bank accounts are tracked as two separate GL accounts. You might have account 1001 (Cash-Checking) and account 1002 (Cash-Savings). In that case, a movement of money between these two accounts should be tracked by a transaction between the GL accounts; credit checking, debit savings. It won't affect your balance sheet, but depending on your definition of liquidity of assets  it might affect working capital on your statement of cash flows (if you consider the savings account ""illiquid"" then money moved to it is a decrease in working capital). Basically, what you are creating with your ""store credit"" accounts for each client is an ""unearned revenue"" account. When clients pay you cash for work you haven't done yet, or you refund money for a return as ""store credit"" instead of cash, the credit is a liability account, balancing an increase in cash, inventory, or an expense (if you're giving credit for free, perhaps due to a mistake on your part, you would debit a ""Store Credit Expense"" account). This can be split out client-by-client in the GL if you wish, avoiding the need for a holding account. The way you want to do it, you'd have a ""Client Holding"" account. It must be unique in the GL and to the client, and yes, it is a liability account. To transfer to holding, you simply debit Unearned Revenue and credit Client Holding, logging the transaction as ""transfer of client store credit"" or similar (moving liability to liability; balance sheet doesn't change). Then, as you sell goods or services to the client, you debit Accounts Receivable and credit Revenue, then to record the payment you credit AR and debit Client Holding (up to its current credit balance, after which the client pays you Cash and you debit that, or the client still owes you). To zero out a remaining balance on the Holding account, debit Client Holding and credit Unearned Revenue. I don't think the Holding account, the way you want to use it, is a good idea. If you want to track each customer's store credit balance with a GL account, then create specialized Unearned Revenue accounts for each client who gets a store credit, named for the client and containing their balance (zero or otherwise). If you don't care about it at the GL level, then pool it in one Unearned Revenue account (have one Store Credit account if you must), and track individual amounts off the books."


"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.aei.org/publication/barriers-to-work-and-social-enterprise-estimating-the-target-population/) reduced by 92%. (I'm a bot) ***** > One possible solution for people with barriers to work is social enterprise.  > Of course, not all nonworking people with low incomes and at least one barrier would be expected to work if given the opportunity with social enterprise or even if they faced no barriers.  > Thus, we also estimate counterfactual work rates for people with barriers to work based on their peers with similar demographic characteristics and educational backgrounds but who do not face barriers.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6svryk/barriers_to_work_and_social_enterprise_estimating/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~188033 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*: **work**^#1 **barrier**^#2 **social**^#3 **enterprise**^#4 **people**^#5"


The buyer of such an account is likely treating it as an asset, and if they ever resell it capital gains (or loss) would be realized. I don't see why this would be any different for the person that created the account initially, except that the basis starts at $0 making the entire sale price taxable. How you figure the value of the account before the initial sale would be more difficult, but fortunately you may not ever need to know the value (for tax purposes) until you actually sell it.


KUCHING: While China Mobile Ltd (China Mobile) has been reported to have held talks to buy circa 20 per cent stake in Axiata Group Bhd (Axiata) at an undiclosed price, analysts say this deal is unlikely to happen.  According to the research arm of Kenanga Investment Bank Bhd (Kenanga Research), the stake would be valued at more than RM11.9 billion based on Wednesday’s closing price of RM6.95.  No agreement was reached as Axiata and its largest shareholder Khazanah Nasional Bhd (Khazanah) were unwilling to sell that much equity stake and also considered the indicated offer price as too low.  Sources: http://www.ranker.com/list/the-jakarta-globe-xl-axiata-axis-capital-group-merger-plans/abbyditter http://www.yelp.com/topic/la-crescenta-montrose-the-jakarta-globe-axis-capital-group-telecom-purchase-xl-axiata


Companies that adopt a closed loop system potentially make a higher return on their marketing investment through sales. In 2011, SiriusDecisions co-founder, Richard Eldh, noted research that showed closed loop businesses grew revenues at an average of 7.5% from 2009 to 2010 while organizations with “worst-in-class” practices only grew an average of 1.4%.


I love the constant denial on this site that mounting debt is an issue. By the way, this is an insult and not an invitation for a discussion. I really don't give a fuck what you or u/geerusell think on the issue. You are both total fucking idiots with your bullshit Keynesian views.


"Scenario 1 - When you sell the shares in a margin account, you will see your buying power go up, but your ""amount available to withdraw"" stays the same until settlement. Yes, you can reallocate the same day, no need to wait until settlement. There is no margin interest for this scenario.  Scenario 2 -  If that stock is marginable to 50%, and all you have is $10,000 in that stock, you can buy another $10,000. Once done, you are at 50% margin, exactly."


China is protecting its prerogatives and, to a lesser extent, its people. American businesses were primarily in generating greater profits and bigger executive bonuses employees be damned. Fuel prices, the complexity of the global supply chain (and its vulnerability to crisis), as well as the slower growth and increasing competition in China are simply a reality check that most astute observers have warned about since the beginning of the trade openings.


"Since you have something of a background in econ, I'd check out the  iTunes University ""Financial Theory"" course provided by Yale University.   http://itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/financial-theory-video/id428500350  It starts off with the basics (time value of money, general equilibrium) and gets into some pretty topical issues -- dynamic hedging, mortgage backed securities, and so on. It's definitely an economics-focused course though, so there isn't going to be much coverage of more mathsy topics such as martingale pricing theory."


Or we could allow market forces to work:   My suggestion woudl be to outlaw price descrimination (charging different people different rates), force providers to disclose prices publicly, and discourage patients from paying everything through a middle man type insureer and purchase more services upfront. We coudl then institute a national catastrophic insurance to trigger in life/death situations and we could then reimburse lower income people later with a government program; *but the amount of reimbursement needs to be hidden from the service provider,* because if they know how much the patient gets reimbursed, they will just charge more.


"Things are the way they are because they got that way.   - Gerald Weinberg Banks have been in business for a very long time. Yet, much of what we take for granted in terms of technology (capabilities, capacity, and cost) are relatively recent developments. Banks are often stuck on older platforms (mainframe, for instance) where the cost of redundant online storage far exceeds the commodity price consumers take for granted. Similarly, software enhancements that require back-end changes can be more complicated. Moreover, unless there's a buck (or billion) to be made, banks just tend to move slowly compared to the rest of the business world. Overcoming ""but we've always done it that way"" is an incredible hurdle in a large, established organization like a bank — and so things don't generally improve without great effort. I've had friends who've worked inside technology divisions at big banks tell me as much. A smaller bank with less historical technical debt and organizational overhead might be more likely to fix a problem like this, but I doubt the biggest banks lose any sleep over it."


"> Barclays said the actions ""fell well short of standards"". Chief executive Bob Diamond is to give up his £2.7m bonus.  Such a harsh self-punishment, especially when he pulled in over £17 million last year."


No. Even if you don't need the additional salary income now, you might be able to contribute the incremental amount over the Roth max to either of the other two types of IRAs, or maybe even something else. You never want to take a lower salary, especially not in exchange for something that is conditional e.g. benefits. Your salary is the only thing that is guaranteed as a condition of employment. Other things can be changed by the employer at a future point in time. If you have two different job offers and the salaries are different, that is a separate scenario. You should make the decision based on overall comparison, not just using Roth limit contribution criteria.


And that's the rub, you didn't win a fucking thing. You are not part of a team. You are just brainwashed by the politics you choose to isolate yourself with. Trump won, not you, and he won on accident and on lying to people that supported him foolishly.  He was expecting to lose, and the day before and day of election Tuesday his campaign was pushing a narrative that democrats cheated to win.  We all fucking lost. You lost worse that I did, because you continue to put your hope in a lying scumbag who has no morals, scruples, or sense of decency whatsoever, and it is too painful to admit your monumental fuckup.


Fair enough, they got capacity wrong, with so much more capacity, the additional **production** must have been so much underestimated too, or was it?     Because if production wasn't 50 times more than expected, this brilliant study just demonstrated that solar capacity factor was grossly overestimated.


"To answer your question point by point - I'd focus on the last point. The back of my business card -  Let's focus on Single. The standard deduction and exemption add to over $10K. I look at this as ""I can have $250K in my IRA, and my $10K (4%) annual withdrawal will be tax free. It takes another $36,900 to fill the 10 and 15% brackets. $922K saved pretax to have that withdrawn each year, or $1.17M total.  That said, I think that depositing to Roth in any year that one is in the 15% bracket or lower can make sense. I also like the Roth Roulette concept, if only for the fact that I am Google's first search result for that phrase.  Roth Roulette is systematically converting and recharacterizing each year the portion of the converted assets that have fallen or not risen as far in relative terms. A quick example. You own 3 volatile stocks, and convert them to 3 Roth accounts. A year later, they are (a) down 20%, (b) up 10%, (c) up 50%. You recharacterize the first two, but keep the 3rd in the Roth. You have a tax bill on say $10K, but have $15K in that Roth."


There are a great number of briquetting plant manufacturer or supplier that happen to be involved in the manufacturing of briquetting equipment. These manufacturers are generally experienced in and possessing the professional expertise in developing qualitative briquetting equipment design and style to offer their potential customers optimum performance and consistent in giving the desire output also with the Guranteed results.


Wow, you really just turned this discussion to make make this all about you. And not only that, you've cherry picked only certain things you want to refute, actually one little thing, and overlooked most of my last comment. I think that says everything about your argument that you avoided most of mine...   Whatever, go keep living in your echo chamber.


"If you have a huge disparity in incomes, ""maybe"".   If you make roughly in the same ballpark, **Noooooo!**   The ability to file separately and have one partner (the higher earner) itemize and claim all the home-related deductions while the other takes the standard deduction is one of the greatest (middle-class) loopholes in modern tax law.  When married, even if filing separately, you have to both itemize or both take the standard deduction.   You just need to take care that the person itemizing has provably contributed *at least* the amount they claim toward the house.  So have one of you write the checks for the mortgage and property tax, and the other pay for everything else, and it'll probably come out roughly even over time.  Going back to my first line, the US tax code seems to be designed around the stereotypical Donna Reed 1950s household, with a single earner.  The closer you are to equal, the bigger the marriage tax **penalty** gets."


"Yes, an estate plan can be very important.  Estate planning - typically attempts to eliminate uncertainties over the administration of a probate and maximize the value of the estate by reducing taxes and other expenses. Guardians are often designated for minor children and beneficiaries in incapacity. In general, your ""estate"" includes all of your assets, less all debt, plus death benefits from all life insurance policies not held in an irrevocable trust. The biggest reason to have an estate plan is to make sure that your personal values about both medical and personal finance financial matters are honored in the event that death or incapacity prevents you from acting for yourself. In addition, tax minimization is a further and very important goal of estate planning for persons with taxable estates. To create an estate plan for yourself or update an existing plan, you will most likely need the services of an estate planning attorney. When you consult with an estate planning attorney, the attorney considers how you want assets distributed to heirs, what taxes might your estate be liable for and whether there are tax-minimization strategies that would be appropriate and appealing; what your preferences and values are with respect to the management of medical and financial affairs in the event of incapacity; and any complicating family issues. To deal with these issues, your attorney will need full and accurate information about you, including: When an estate plan is created, be sure you understand what the attorney is saying. Estate planning ideas can be confusing. It is also appropriate and expected for you to ask about the attorney's fee for any legal service. Some articles and resources: Get ahead of your estate planning Estate Planning by CBA"


"Really?  . . . I don't think the Fucking Moron made it past Checkers, Chess was probably way beyond his ability to comprehend.  Actually The Orange Cantilope thinks he is playing ""Blind Poker"" and he is trying to Bluff his way to a win, what the Moron does not realize is that everybody else knows what they are holding and also know what he is holding and the only person at the table who doesn't know what he is holding is him.  He invented a new game  Ignorant Moron Poker"


I'm an independent tech contractor in Canada.  The single payer health care makes it so much easier to be a contractor or to create a startup.  I have to wonder if the lack of healthcare in the US is the result of businesses trying to retain white collar workers that would otherwise go independent.  In this environment, it's little surprise that I prefer getting those big cheques over getting benefits.  Usually the benefit packages are little more than dental, many of which only provide partial coverage.


If you are sure you are right, you should sell stock short. Then, after the market drop occurs, close out your position and buy stock, selling it once the stock has risen to the level you expect. Be warned, though. Short selling has a lot of risk. If you are wrong, you could quite easily lose all $80,000 or even substantially more. Consider, for example, this story of a person who had $37,000 and ended up losing all of that and still owing over $100,000. If you mistime your investment, you could quite easily lose your entire investment and end up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt.


"There's Amazon deliveries already in the SF Bay area. Not too bad. There's also a few couriers as well that do regional  I can almost see the fallback if Gartner makes a report on this. ""Amazon has its own delivery service, so we should too!"""


These earnings will likely have tax implications, depending on where in the world you are. So, your budget concerns not nearly as important as having an honest conversation about money with your husband. Better for him to be mad about the truth than to continue the lie, and potentially have this become a much larger legal, not just marital, problem.


several obvious result:  1. nobody takes US treaty and agreement seriously. It is assumed everything will become political football during election, and any elected clowns will change anything and everything.   2. No smart company will invest mega project with long and initial low return. Semiconductor fab, complex supply chain, base metal and chemicals, shipyard, etc.  By default US is now isolated from global supply chain. All complex industry will be outside US. There is no price and political stability.   3.  the tally, US is isolated from global  supply chain, energy chain, electronics fab and manufacturing,  shipping, And most of newer free trade zone. There is no way US can keep maintaining global competitiveness that much longer.  US based product price will be completely out of world's market.  .  Here is one example:  Bill calls for U.S.-flag ships for 30% of LNG, crude exports   http://www.marinelog.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=25279:bill-calls-for-us-flag-ships-for-30-of-us-lng-crude-exports&Itemid=231  In order for that to happen: a) one has to have competitive shipyard, otherwise the ship will be too expensive. b)somebody has to finance that multi billion dollar projects. c) there has to be steady supply and buyer, long term contract and treaties. US has no steady LNG port and no long term buyers.  It is at war/bickering with all major LNG buyers.    who is going to buy that kind of deal or who is going to be the global salesman?  Trump?  yeah sure... He will just piss off everybody by second sentence.


One of many reasons no one should take DailyFail seriously:  >Tesla shares shot up by more than three per cent to $312.39 per share - compared to GM's valued at $33.97 and Ford's which are worth just $11.25 per share.


Just because he owns several businesses and brands, doesn't mean he's good with money. It's like you're saying a person is good at running 200mph if they're driving a car that can go that fast. His financial advisor is good with money, like how a car is good at going 200mph.   >You just hate him cuz he's a dick that makes life look easy as fuck... get over yourself  At this point, I think you're just projecting. I don't hate him or dislike him, or have any opinion. You seem to be the one emotionally invested in defending his finance management abilities.


Check out the property websites to get an idea of how much, the property in question, could yield as rent. Most give a range and you can get a good idea of it. Just one example from zoopla. Likewise you can refer mouseprice or rightmove and get yourself an idea. Property websites do a lot of data crunching to do an update, but their figure is only a guide.


Fair enough. It's an interesting one, seems everyone has taken to wearing them in the US office. We rip the piss out of them pretty badly over here, until one dude rocked up with an Axe Capital one. That was pretty cool


There's plenty of companies selling groceries. I would say there's only one online store with an almost entirely vertically integrated business model where you buy goods and have them delivered by that same company. Literally the only middle-man left for Amazon to cut out is the manufacturers/distributors which for now probably won't be integrated to reduce risk/increase flexibility.


"Thanks for the link. It was great to hear Curtis speak about things.   He had an interesting take on Occupy Wall Street.  He said if he'd been in charge of it he's have sacked the leaders but he didn't make note of how OWS was slowly neutered by the MSM.  After the intial coverage, the MSM began focusing their reporting on the physically more disagreeable aspects of that many people ensconcing themselves into an area and they started framing it as a public heath hazard and a nuisance.  Once the public had absorbed the message and interest waned, the police were sent in to disperse them all.   Edit. After listening to the whole thing, Curtis' final monologue on ""change"" and who expects what type of change and what it would cost them was brilliant and stunningly prescient.  It made me redefine the ""change"" I envision."


When inflation is high or is rising generally interest rates will be raised to reduce people spending their money and slow down the rate of inflation. As interest rates rise people will be less willing to borrow money and more willing to keep their money earning a good interest rate in the bank. People will reduce their spending and invest less into alternative assets but instead put more into their bank savings. When inflation is too low and the economy is starting to slow down generally interest rates will be raised to encourage more spending to restart the economy again. As interest rates drop more will take their saving out of their bank accounts as is starts to earn very little in interest rate and more will be willing to borrow as it becomes cheaper to borrow. People will start spending more and investing their money outside of bank savings.


While it is true that this formula may have historically outperformed the market you have to keep one important thing in mind: once the formula is out in the open, the market inefficiency will disappear. Here is what I mean. Historically there have always been various inefficiencies in the market structure. Some people were able to find these and make good money off them. Invariably these people tend to write books about how they did it. What happens next is that lots of people get in on the game and now you have lots of buyers going after positions that used to be under-priced, raising demand and thus prices for these positions. This is how inter-exchange arbitrage disappeared. Its how high frequency trading is running itself into the ground. If enough demand is generated for an inefficiency, the said inefficiency disappears or the gains get so small that you can only make money off it with large amounts of capital. Keep in mind, as Graham said, there is no silver bullet in the stock market since you do not hold any data that is unavailable to everyone else.


"Yup. Everyone was like: ""omg it's a bubble.""    Well not if we deflat the ballon once in a while to keep it balanced. Then it's not a bubble, but a trend up.    ""But if it's not a bubble then it must be tanking!!!!!""   What are you people, bots with boolean AND logic? You know, that explains a lot of things."


If you wanted to spend money in another country, a specialist credit card would be the most cost-effective way. Near-spot exchange rate, zero-loading, no/low ATM fees. Likewise a pre-paid debit card would also allow for money transfer across borders. If this is the right situation, FOREX trading platforms are overkill to achieve a valid solution.


Unfortunately I've seen every single example you've provided from the health care providers perspective.  Trust me, they aren't happy about the situation either - hence the reason they will demand up front payment from you based on who your insurance carrier is.  I could name a few of the top brand name insurance companies in this country that do all of this to their clients.   Medical billing is an incredibly over complicated beast.  One that insurance companies have been doing everything they can to make worse over the years.  The codes can change annually and there are MANY different codes which can cover the exact same situation.  Sure the insurance company might cover gallstones, but if you happen to be pregnant, well, that may not covered even though the treatment is the exact same. What can you do? Consider locating a new insurance company.  You do have options and don't have to go with the one your company uses.  The downside is that this is going to take quite a bit of research on your part and it will end up costing you more money on your monthly premiums simply because your company won't be footing part of the bill.   Talk to other co-workers and see if their experiences match yours.  If so, try to get a large enough group together to approach management and demand resolution.   A third potential avenue is to get politically involved - but I'm enough of a pessimist that I doubt that would do any good.  From what I've seen, neither major political party's current position actually does anything to solve the problem. A fourth option is suing the insurance company - but that is going to be incredibly expensive and take forever.  You might have better luck getting together with a bunch of local people and demand your attorney general review the billing/payment practices. Again, this is going to require a LOT of effort. A fifth option is to attempt to cash pay your bills and submit them yourself to the insurance company for reimbursement.  If you do this you can likely negotiate lower bills with the medical provider.  For anything less than about $2,000 I negotiate the amount prior to service.  Believe me when I say that providers are more than happy to give decent discounts if they know they won't have to deal with the insurance companies themselves.  Slightly more work for you, but could be far cheaper in the long run.


"It's just poor writing. Developers like to presell the houses and so on the lots, they advertise the very rough estimate for how much the final house will be selling for. The ""with the completed homes selling for as much as"" 500k means that the developer is selling most of the houses in the 400k range (or they have at least one sale at ~500k)"


"I could be wrong, but I do not think that's the actual question being argued or it wouldn't be at the SCOTUS.  I believe the question is actually, is it a violation of ones first amendment rights to have to pay an organization that uses it's resources to support polical causes and ideals that you may not agree with.   Regadless of what you feel about that statement, in my opinion, this suite like the ones before it are really only about money and politics. Companies can save money if there are weeker Unions and Democrats lose a strong power base.  That's why there are groups like the freedom foundation. They don't actually care about protecting your free speech, they care about their ""doner's"" bottom line and idiology.    PS - I'msure this is a shocker, but I will admit that I do have a bias in this argument. Although I am not and never have been a union member, I was raised comfortably on union salaries."


Yeah, Metallica took the opposite route and where the hell are they now? Collecting dust? To continue the music analogy, Wilco did the same as Louie (basically) and it broke them into the mainstream. This idea is nothing new, it is just about convincing the artists to adopt it.


The benefit is not in taxes. When you sell a portion of your stock, you no longer have a portion of your stock. When you get a dividend, you still have a portion of your stock. Dividends are distributed from the net profits of a company and as such usually don't affect its growth/earning potential much (although there may be cases when they do). So while the price takes a temporary dip due to the distribution, you're likely to get the same dividends again next year, if the company continues being similarly profitable. If you sell a portion of your stock, at some point you'll end up with no more stocks to sell.


I'm right in the middle of Gen X.  While I don't hate Applebee's, I never go.  They're on the expensive side and all of the small local restaurants will serve a better meal at half the price.  I'm also cooking more at home.  I recently bought a high temperature grill from a restaurant supply company that I'm installing at the house I just bought.  It's the same thing restaurants use, so I will have the same food for 10%-25% of what a restaurant charges.  The bottom line is that Applebee's charges too much for their product.  The product is OK, and I've had really good service at Applebee's.  The servers are usually nice and competent.  But I can't pay $15-$20 for a meal I can knock off for $3 or get at a local reataurant for $10.


I was in a similar situation and my method was this: since I already had a fidelity 401k account it was pretty easy to open a individual account through the website.  From there you can just put the money into a general market mutual fund or exchange traded fund. I prefer low expense ratio funds like passive indexed funds since studies show that there isn't much benefit to actively traded funds.  So I just put my money into the popular, low fee fund SPY which tracks to the S&P 500.  I  plan on leaving the money there for at least a year, if not several years, so I can pay the lower capital gains tax rate on any gains and avoid paying the commissions too many times. In your situation you might want to consider using the extra cash to max out you and your wife's 401k this year, since you aren't already taking full advantage of that. Often people recommend saving 10% or 15% of gross income throughout their career for retirement, so you're on the low side and maybe have a small bit of catch up to do. Finally you could also start a 529 education saving plan to save for kid's future college cost.


Because the distribution date was APR 21, 2011, THAT should be the correct date for ascertainng the stock prices of the GM stock and warrants.  The subsequent distributions after April should also be allocated in accordance with their distribution dates, with tax basis being reduced from the original APR 21st date's allocations, and reallocated to those subsequent distributions, taking into account any interim sales you might have made.


The risk of the particular share moving up or down is same for both.   however in terms of mitigating the risk, Investor A is conservative on upside, ie will exit if he gets 10%, while is ready to take unlimited downside ... his belief is that things will not go worse .. While Investor B is wants to make at least 10% less than peak value and in general is less risk averse as he will sell his position the moment the price hits 10% less than max [peak value] So it more like how do you mitigate a risk, as to which one is wise depends on your belief and the loss appetite


If your goal is to work in the U.S. then it would make sense to attend a U.S. university. American companies are going to recruit on american campuses after all. Or you could stay in Europe and target a U.S. multinational after graduation. Fluent English and another European language would be a big plus. (it's not much of an 'international' business degree if it doesn't include a language)


While it’s your personal choice on HOW you save for later its essential that you save. My sister works in a bank and recommended me not to put any money into retirement plans since the tax-advances seem fine but have to paid back when you take the money out of the accounts (in Switzerland, don't know about the united states). Many reasons exist that you suddenly need the money: Buying a house, needing a new car, health issues or just leaving the country forever (and the government trying to make it as hard as possible for you to get your money back). I recommend putting it on a savings account on a different bank that you normally use, without any cards and so on. In short: It can be dangerous to have money locked away – especially if you could easily have it at your hands and you know you're able to manage it.


In my experience, there are two types of redditors.  Reddit is mostly those who just vote & move on - they vote up the sensational headlines, the memes, the images, etc.    Then reddit has those who comment in non-default subs - they're the ones in the comment sections of those posts complaining about what a crappy post it is.    The first group seems to have a big = bad business mentality, the other group seems more nuanced.


All hearsay and a bad memory, but if I remember correctly, when you dig deep the reason he raised salaries was to help fight some lawsuits against his ex wife and/or ex business partner. These raises effectively made the company make nothing while he was fighting lawsuits. Then it eventually turned into publicity and more clients for his payment processing company.


it's really interesting that the more legal it becomes the more that this will become the perception of it i think.  in the 90s it was exciting edgy counter culture.  now when i think of smoking weed  i think of chumps like this guy, frightened depressed and ill but pretending it's party time.  whenever he starts hacking his lungs up i just want to give him a cuddle and make him a cup of tea.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AGcHwwQ24I


Me either. I havent even read the book yet, its sitting on my shelf. I know he influenced the container store, and i read that and was mildly impressed.  Of all the bad corporate practices, charging too much is one of the least immoral, because the consumer can just shop elsewhere (unless ur Comcast...). I haven't given it a ton of thought, but if your environmentallyminded, and you take care of your employees, your doing ok. The customer treatment might make you a disliked company, but maybe not an immoral one? Whats ur take on that?


If you want to make sure you pay at or below a specific price per share, use a limit order. If you want to buy the stock close to the current price, but aren't price sensitive, use a market order. Market orders are typically not a great idea because if you're buying thousands or tens of thousands of shares this can mean a large swing in cost if the market suddenly changes direction.


">You assume that student performance is a good proxy for teacher performance. One of the bigger influences on student performance is parent engagement.  If the goal is success in actual conveyance of knowledge, then external factors are merely the ""environment"" in which the performance (or lack thereof) must be executed.  If a teacher is incapable of reaching a particular group of students (due to whatever ""environmental"" reasons) then that teacher is obviously NOT performing IN that environment.  It would be best then (for everyone, *including that teacher*) to get a DIFFERENT teacher in their place; and for that teacher then to attempt to teach in a different environment (where they may be capable of shining), rather than to keep them in an environment where they are failing.  **A big part of the problem here is that ""merit"" is seen by teachers as if it were a judgment of them as PEOPLE** -- which, ironically enough is a rather juvenile mindset -- when in fact **it is merely a judgement of their specific performance in a particular situation.**  And as far as pay is concerned -- pay varies in virtually EVERY profession and industry (and people MOVE and CHOOSE accordingly) -- the seeking of some utopian ""egalitarianism"" is woefully naive."


Because our entire economy is based on the stuff to keep going and every ounce has to be pulled out of the ground from somewhere.  Microsoft and Apple couldn't exist without oil to create the plastic and other components that go into computer hardware let alone getting employees to their campuses via car or bus.


"sorry mate, its not about being loyal. it's about what you negotiate.   you stay with a company long enough and you'll only rack up your annual 2% pay increase and see minor raises until you're promoted to incompetence. If you really want to see healthy compensation than you need to realize it's about negotiating to your true value to the market - not just join a company and cross your fingers for the best.   Frankly, if someone is willing to pay more ($$ and other benefits) then you'd do yourself and those you support a disservice not going for it. There are times when you should be less aggressive about it for the long haul, but don't forget, a company's job is to turn a profit which means getting workers to work at the lowest possible salary. And when a corporation thinks someone is ""loyal"" and won't move, then a smart company will go ahead and test that assumption.  Re: entry level expectations about their true value - absolutely agree, expect entry compensation. But don't think being ""loyal"" is what changes that. Only increasing your actual value does - not just because you've been around forever."


Yes, if all my savings were in Euro, I would absolutely be converting everything to US dollars, and possibly some gold.  You probably don't want to sit around with lots of Euros while watching the shit hit fan.  Talk to your bank, possibly they can open a US dollar bank account in your own country for you.  Definitely any bank that has an international presence, like HSBC, should be able to do this for you.  And if not US dollars, British Pounds would also be another option.


Buying a car is a very big financial decision.  There are three major factors to decide which car to buy: Pick two because you can't have all three.  You can either have a reliable car that has cheap running costs but will be expensive to buy or a cheap car that is unreliable.  If you are mechanically minded then reliability might not be that important to you.  However, if you must get to work on time every day then owning a car that breaks down once every six months might be something you wish to avoid. There are a lot of hidden costs that should be thought about very carefully when considering purchasing a car: In my country, annual car registration costs are around $650.  I budget around $1000 for maintenance each year (a major + minor service and some extra repair work).  When I factor in an amount for depreciation, that brings the running costs of the car to somewhere between $1500 and $2000 per annum before I've driven it anywhere. Generally I will fill up my car for $50 around once a month (I don't drive too often) which makes my total cost of ownership somewhere around $2500 per annum.  When I was driving my car to work daily, the petrol costs were much higher at around $50 per week, which made my TCO somewhere around $4500 p.a. And this is on an extremely reliable, fuel efficient 2006 model car which cost me $18k to purchase.  I have no debt on this car.  But the car itself is a liability.  Any car will be a liability. I understand that petrol prices are ridiculously low in the US and probably registration is lower as well.  In this case you will need to adjust your figures and do the maths to work out what your annual cost of ownership will be. There are three alternatives to car ownership to consider which may save you money: Public transportation and car pooling are highly recommended from a financial perspective, though you may not have access to either in your situation.  Moving closer to work may also be an option, though for many jobs this may increase your cost of living. If you decide that you do need a car and decide that $2000 is not going to get you the car you feel you need ($2000 usually does not get you much), you will need to decide how to finance the car. You will want to avoid most dealer-based finance deals.  Be very wary of any dealer offering interest free finance as they usually have some pretty nasty conditions. Getting a loan from your parents or another family member is usually the best option.  Otherwise consider getting a personal loan, which will have a lower interest rate than a credit card or dealer finance. Another option could be to get a credit card on an interest-free promotional deal which you could pay down before the interest kicks in.  Be warned though, these deals usually require you to pay off your whole balance before the due date or they will back-charge interest on the whole amount. In short, these are the decisions that you will need to make:


What does this mean by “from”? Will the price change while you are   living there? It means the cheapest apartment(s) they have are $875, but they have more expensive apartments as well. They likely have apartments with different numbers of rooms and other features that they charge a premium for.  Some leases have clauses that allow for rent to increase over time, but that's not very common, typically if a price can change it's limited to increases due to utility rates or taxes.


"I really have to use the business card for personal expenses, please assume that in your answer. This is very hard to believe. You must do that? Why not just have the company pay you $1600 each month? Then you can use that money for whatever you want. Why can't you do this? (I cannot think of a legitimate reason...) How to integrate the personal expenses in company? Anyway, to answer your question, what I've done when I accidentally used my corporate card for a personal expense is to code the expense as a payment to me similar to if a check had been written to me. If you aren't ever paying yourself, then you should just pay the company back the $1600 every month. As a side note, I highly recommend you don't do this. By doing this on a regular basis you are opening the door for piercing the corporate veil. This means that the financial protections provided by the LLC could potentially be stripped away since personal and corporate funds are being mixed. The unfortunate end result is that personal assets could end up being fair game too in a judgement against the company. Even if you aren't an owner, your relative could be considered to be ""using business money for personal expenses"", namely, letting a relative spend business funds for personal use. How to show more expenses and lessen the profit? If you're referring to the personal expenses, then you absolutely do not want to do this! That's illegal and worthy of stiff penalties, which possibly include jail time for tax evasion. Better to just have the company pay you and then the entire payment is deductible and reduces the profit of the company."


Yes. On December 10, you have a wash sale. As long as you don't buy the stock back for 30 days after that, the wash is of no consequence. In other words, you don't have a wash issue if you don't own the stock for 30 days.


"As ApplePie discusses, ""tax bracket"" without any modifiers refers to a single jurisdiction's marginal tax rate.  In your case, this is either your California's ""tax bracket"" or your Federal ""tax bracket"" (not including marginal Social Security and Medicare taxes).  But if someone says ""combined state and federal tax bracket"", they probably mean the combination of your state and federal income tax brackets (again, lot including sales taxes, business and occupational taxes, social security taxes, and medicare taxes).  The math to combine the state and federal marginal tax rates is a bit tricky, because most people can deduct either their state and local income taxes, or their state and local general sales taxes when computing their income for federal income tax purposes.  (The federal ""alternative minimum tax"" restricts this deduction for some people.) For a single person earning $ 100,000 of salaries and wages in California, whose state income taxes are close to their standard deduction, the calculations for the combined marginal income tax rate look something like this: As mentioned above, this understates the tax bite on marginal ""earned income"".  To find the true marginal rate, we need to add in Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes, sales taxes, and business & occupation taxes.  The Social Security and Medicare taxes are sometimes called ""self employment taxes"".  This math omits unemployment insurance and workers' compensation insurance, because those taxes are typically capped well below $ 100,000 per year of income.  This math also omits B & O taxes, because this question is California specific. If an employer wishes to increase an employee's pay by $ 1,076.50, the first $ 76.50 will go to the employer's share of Social Security and Medicare taxes.  The remaining $ 1,000.00 will be subject to the combined marginal income tax rate discussed above, plus will have $ 76.50 go to the employee's share of Social Security and Medicare taxes.  The employee might buy some extra things with some of their extra money, and pay sales tax on them. In 2016, a 9 % sales tax rate was common in California's largest cities. The IRS estimated that (for a single person with no dependents making $ 100,000 per year who did not buy a boat, RV, motor vehicle, or major home construction), about 9 % of their marginal gross income was subject to sales tax."


"There is no one solution to every project finance problem. Two models might make sense in this situation, however. In this case, you would count all the money that you give to your friend as a loan which he will pay back with interest. The interest rate and loan amounts will have to be agreed on by both of you. One one hand, the interest should be high enough to reward you in a successful outcome for the amount of risk that you take on if things don't work out. On the other, the interest rate needs to be low enough where his earnings after loan repayment justify your friend's effort, in addition to being competitive to ant rate your friend could secure from a bank. The downside to this plan is you don't directly benefit from the franchise's profits. In this model, you will record the cash that each of you invests. Since your friend is also adding ""sweat equity"" by setting up and operating the franchise, you will need to quantify the work that your friend and you invest into the franchise. Then you can determine how much each of you has invested in terms of dollars and split any franchise profits based on those proportions. The downside of this plan is that it is difficult to estimate how much time each of you invests and how much that time is worth."


It depends on your bank and your mortgage contract details if they are willing to handle it that way, but you are correct in your assumption that you should be able to save the interest for the twenty days, which accumulates to significant savings. A rough estimate for the overall saving is 20 years x 3% x 20/30 of the days = (one time) 40% of your monthly payment.


"For the S&P and many other indices (but not the DJIA) the index ""price"" is just a unitless number that is the result of a complicated formula.  It's not a dollar value.  So when you divide said number by the earnings/share of the sector, you're again getting just a unitless number that is incomparable to standard P-E ratios. In fact, now that I think about, it kinda makes sense that each sector would have a similar value for the number that you're computing, since each sector's index formula is presumably written to make all the index ""price""s look similar to consumers."


"You don't actually have to make four equal payments on US federal taxes; you can pay different amounts each quarter.  To avoid penalties, you must have paid ""enough"" at the end of each quarter.  If you pay too much in an early quarter, the surplus counts towards the amount due in later quarters.  If you have paid too little as of the end of a quarter, that deficit counts against you for interest and penalties until it is made up in later quarters (or at year-end settlement). How much is ""enough""?  There are a number of ways of figuring it.  You can see the list of exceptions to the penalty in the IRS documentation.  Using unequal payments may require more complicated calculation methods to avoid or reduce penalties at year-end.  If you have the stomach for it, you may want to study the Annualized Income Installment Method to see how uneven income might affect the penalty."


"You are entirely correct that it is an assumption, so I will not argue the point any further other than to say that I don't think it's a very large stretch of the imagination to say that a more robust bitcoin ""economy"", and a larger user base would smooth it out the volatility. It seems pretty reasonable to me that the instability in prices can't be accounted for from the technology that runs bitcoin, and yet it is obvious that the current bitcoin economy is borderline abysmal. It's the things bitcoin allows you to do outside of financial institutions that give it a robustness over typical government backed fiat currencies. When we utilize this advantage, **real** people will use the technology, and a genuine bitcion economy could flourish.   As a caveat to this, I'm not 100% convinced that *""bitcoins""* are the answer. To me, bitcoins are one particular brand of free (as in speech), decentralized, crypto-currencies. When I speak of bitcoins, I'm promoting the idea it represents more than this particular implementation, although I do believe bitcions (the exact software you can download and run at this moment) have the potential for tremendously more use than they're currently being used for."


What you should compare is SPX, SPY NAV, and ES fair value.   Like others have said is SPX is the index that others attempt to track. SPY tracks it, but it can get a tiny bit out of line as explained here by @Brick .  That's why they publish NAV or net asset value.  It's what the price should be.  For SPY this will be very close because of all the participants.  The MER is a factor, but more important is something called tracking error, which takes into account MER plus things like trading expenses plus revenue from securities lending.  SPY (the few times I've checked) has a smaller tracking error than the MER.  It's not much of a factor in pricing differences. ES is the price you'll pay today to get SPX delivered in the future (but settled in cash).  You have to take into account dividends and interest, this is called fair value.  You can find this usually every morning so you can compare what the futures are saying about the underlying index. http://www.cnbc.com/pre-markets/ The most likely difference is you're looking at different times of the day or different open/close calculations.


I have a few debts in collection. I do not care, I make very good money now, but I prefer to spend it on nice cars instead. In US after 7 years they do not affect your credit score. On the contrary, if you pay them they can ding your credit. That's what Susie Orman show says as well -- there is absolutely no point paying a debt that is more than 7 years old.


"You should look up that word, too. I obviously know how to read and write since I am typing these posts. Actually, you should just save everyone the trouble and go back to grade school until you can get at least a ""check"" or ""check plus"" on those vocabulary tests.  My post blew you the fuck out. Deal with it."


Want to work online at home? (Employment Opportunities for All Countries - Legitimate Online Jobs) It's here, Employment Opportunities for All Countries - Legitimate Online Jobs. Here you can get jobs do you want, get paid $300 or more every month. No experience necessary. You can easily get it. Visit http://adf.ly/9aCPn.


isn't it still a dilution of existing share holder stock value ? Whether this is dilution or benefit, only time will tell. The Existing value of Facebook is P, the anticipated value after Watsapp is P+Q ... it may go up or go down depending on whether it turns out to be the right decision. Plus if Facebook hadn't bought Watsapp and someone else may have bought and Facebook itself would have got diluted, just like Google Shadowed Microsoft and Facebook shadowed Google ... There are regulations in place to ensure that there is no diversion of funds and shady deals where only the management profits and others are at loss. Edit to littleadv's comments: If a company A is owned by 10 people for $ 10 with total value $100, each has 10% of the share in the said company. Now if a Company B is acquired again 10 ea with total value 100. In percentage terms everyone now owns 5% of the new combined company C. He still owns $10 worth. Just after this acquisition or some time later ...


> When we stopped using horses & buggies, all the people in those industries didn't just throw up their hands and walk away from work.  We started producing cars that still needed to be driven by humans. Now we can produce cars with minimal human intervention in the production process and they'll be driving themselves.  A robot already did an unassisted heart surgery and they are better at diagnosing then MDs.   We moved from agriculture to industry to service. Once we automate service what is left for humans to do? Entertain?


"There is no hard and fast rule. If there was, people could cleverly arrange to make money just often enough to stay on the ""ok"" side. It's a judgement call by the CRA and it probably starts with an audit, and depends on the reasons for the loss. Simple example: your business is selling your time at X an hour and you have expenses that you will cover if you sell Y hours a year, where Y is a lot less than the 2000 hours we have to sell each year. Maybe 300. And you had a big contract but it fell through and though you tried and tried you couldn't get another contract. This will probably be considered a reasonable loss. Another example: your business is selling art or antiques, most of which are kept in your house where you can look at them every day and enjoy them. Your expenses include lots of flights to places where these art or antiques come from, or perhaps are inspired by, along with hotel and restaurant costs, and you would need to sell your entire inventory every year just to cover these expenses, yet you only sell one or two pieces a year (or none) and there's no indication that you're particularly trying to sell more than that. This will probably be considered an unreasonable loss, and if the situation persists for many years in a row, the expenses may end up being disallowed. Side businesses often lose money at first. In fact, once they stop losing money they stop being side businesses. If you have spin up costs like buying hardware, developing software, or acquiring inventory, and you can show how long those extra costs can be expected to last, your expenses are less likely to be disallowed. That's the issue, not how many years in a row the loss occurred. This archived CRA document http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tp/it364/it364-e.html gives examples of startup expenses that were allowed in years that didn't have revenue, never mind profit."


> Nope, I'm not telling people what to do...  You kind of are.  I think you agree low-wage people are disadvantaged and you are pointing out that starting a new business is a way out for them.  If you think that is a real solution then you are recommending that course of action.  > Which I think is a nonfactual claim.  I don't think you are trying to understand my position.  I think you just want to be technically correct over my illustratively simplified example.


A rollover IRA is a traditional IRA.  Your rollover contributions are not taxed and rollover or counted against your annual limit, which is income dependent. A Roth IRA is one where your contributions will be taxed going into the IRA.  Note that there are adjusted gross income maximums for contribution to a Roth IRA (see here), and as far as I can tell those income maximums also determine whether or not you can rollover to a Roth IRA.


For most, it's usually $30 to initially freeze ($10 x 3 major credit bureaus) then $30 in the future to unfreeze for a certain time frame each time you need a credit check, ie applying for a credit card, mortgage, auto lease. It may well be worth it to avoid thousands of dollars of losses from identity theft but still doesn't seem low cost to me. Looked into it but will take my chances. Equifax is super sketchy to not make at least their own freezing service free for life given their huge screwup. $20 for every credit check for the rest of my life would have been more reasonable but still a decent amount of money.


In my business (estate planning law practice), probably 60-70% of my income is in the form of checks, with the balance as credit/debit cards. I prefer to get paid by check so I don't have to pay the approx 2.5% merchant fee, but I don't push clients to choose one method over the other. I offer direct deposit to my employees but most of them choose to be paid by check. Also, check processing is becoming more and more electronic - when I get paid by check, I scan the checks in a dedicated desktop scanner, and upload the check images to the bank at the end of the day, and the checks are processed very quickly. I also make deposits to my personal credit union account by scanning checks and uploading the images.  So, yes, there's technically a paper check, but I (as the merchant/recipient/depositor) keep the check for a few months to make sure there's no problem with the deposit/payment, then shred them. The bank never sees the actual paper check.


As mentioned in the other answer, you can't invest all of your money in one slightly risky place, and to receive a significant return on your investment, you must take on a reasonable amount of risk, and must manage that risk by diversifying your portfolio of investments. Unfortunately, answers to this question will be somewhat opinion and experience-based. I have two suggestions, however both involve risk, which you will likely experience in any situation. Peer to Peer Lending In my own situation, I've placed a large sum of money into peer-to-peer lending sites, such as LendingClub. LendingClub specifically advertises that 98% of its user base that invests in 100 notes or more of relatively equal size receive positive returns, and I'm sure you'll see similar statements in other similarly established vendors in this area. Historical averages in this industry can be between 5-7%, you may be able to perform above or below this average.  The returns on peer to peer lending investments are paid out fairly frequently, as each loan you invest in on the site pays back into your account every time the recipient of the loan makes a payment.  If you invest in small amounts / fractions of several hundred loans, you're receiving several small payments throughout the month on various dates. You can withdraw any money you have received back that hasn't been invested, or money you have in the account that hasn't been invested, at any time for personal spending. However, this involves various risks, which have to be considered (Such as someone you've loaned money to on the site defaulting). Rental Property / Property itself I'm also considering purchasing a very cheap home, and renting it out to tenants for passive income. This is something I would consider a possibility for you. On this front, you have the savings to do the same. It would be possible for you to afford the 20% downpayment on a very low cost home (Say, $100,000 or less up to $200,000 depending on your area), but you'd need to be able to pay for the monthly mortgage payment until you had a tenant, and would need to be able to afford any on-going maintenance, however ideally you'd factor that into the amount you charged tenants. You could very likely get a mortgage for a place, and have a tenant that pays you rent that exceeds the amount you pay for the mortgage and any maintenance costs, earning you a profit and therefore passive income. However, rental properties involve risks in that you might have trouble finding tenants or keeping tenants or keeping the property in good shape, and it's possible the property value could decrease.  One could also generalize that property is a somewhat 'safe' investment, in that property values tend to increase over time, and while you may not significantly over-run inflation's increase, you may be able to get more value out of the property by renting it out in the mean time. Additional Note on Credit You mention you have a credit card payment that you're making, to build credit. I'd like to place here, for your reference, that you do not need to carry a balance to build credit. Having active accounts and ensuring you don't miss payments builds your history. To be more specific, your history is based off of many different aspects, such as:  I'm sure I missed a couple of things on this front, you should be able to find this information with some research. Wanted to make sure you weren't carrying a balance simply due to the common myth that you must do so to build credit. Summary The items mentioned above are suggestions, but whatever you choose to invest in, you should carefully spread out / diversify your portfolio across a variety of different areas.  It would not be advisable to stick to just one investment method (Say, either of the two above) and not also invest in stocks / bonds or other types of investments as well.  You can certainly decide what percentage of your portfolio you want to invest in different areas (for instance X% of assets in Stocks/bonds, Y% in real-estate, etc), but it does make the most sense to not have all of your eggs in one basket.


The IRA custodian is supposed to pay the formation costs.  If the IRA owner does it then there is a problem. In some structures, the IRA owner, custodian, trustee, administrator, etc may involve some of the same people. Pay very close attention to these words in the structure you are setting up.


The EU says you are wrong about there only being three.  What made the original Trilogy great seems in hindsight to be that George Lucas more of an off hand approach for whatever reason.    The original is what you get when George Lucas gives general/big plot points.  The Prequels are what you get when you give Lucas complete control.


Haven't they been predicting this since 2012? The luxury housing market keeps going up due to huge demand, influx of $ from the economic and stock market boom, and technological epicenters of innovation such as the Bay Area. Not a bubble


"The question one has to ask is - what do you consider an economic system? That definition should include also some kind of stability criterion, as many economic systems ""live"" for only a relatively limited amount of time. The longest economic system humans had so far is the ""proto-communist"" hunter-gatherer system and timebanking systems usually die after couple of years. Others to consider:  • the volunteer economy (produces economic value, but workers receive no economic reward), • time share (time banking) and other ""local"" currencies, • merit economy"


What is your investment goal?  Many investors buy for the long haul, not short-term gain.  If you're looking for long-term gain then daily fluctuations should be of no concern to you.  If you want to day-trade and time the market (buy low and sell high with a short holding period) then yes less volatile stock can be less profitable, but they also carry less risk.  In that case, though, transaction fees have more of an impact, and you usually have to trade in larger quantities to reduce the impact of transaction fees.


"In the unlikely case that noone finds a way to extract resources from the company and distribute them to shareholders periodically in a way that's de facto equivalent to dividends, any company can be dissolved. The assets of the company would be sold for their market value, the liabilities would have to be settled, and the net result of all this (company cash + sale results - liabilities) would be distributed to shareholders proportionally to their shares. The 'liquidation value' is generally lower than the market value of a company as an ongoing concern that's making business and earning profit, but it does put a floor on it's value - if the stock price is too low, someone can buy enough stock to get control of the company, vote to dissolve it, and make a profit that way; and the mere fact that this can happen props up the stock price. Companies could even be created for a limited time period in the first hand (which has some historical precedent with shareholders of 'trading companies' with lifetime of a single trade voyage). Imagine that there is some company Megacorp2015 where shareholders want to receive $1M of its cash as ""dividends"". They can make appropriate contracts that will form a new company called Megacorp2016 that will take over all the ongoing business and assets except $1M in cash, and then liquidate Megacorp2015 and distribute it's assets (shares of Megacorp2016 and the ""dividend"") among themselves. The main difference from normal dividends is that in this process, you need cooperation from any lenders involved, so if the company has some long-term debts then they would need agreement from those banks in order to pay out ""dividends"". Oh, and everyone would have to pay a bunch more to lawyers simply to do ""dividends"" in this or some other convoluted way."


I was referring to the construct of the machine itself. I'm fully aware of the price point comparisons, I *choose* to pay for something not made of plastic after three shitty experiences with Dell and one or two with HP.  *But that's just like, my opinion mann.*


Back in the 1800s, the American founder and editor of the New York Tribune, Horace Greeley, advised young entrepreneurs seeking their fortune to “Go west, young man!”  However, the 21st-century business formula has been reversed to “Go east, young man!” But how far can this new concept go? To go east, to China, and do business there requires a new mindset and diligent research.  How do you avoid scams and stay clean? Read the full article at Tradegood.com


Your calculations are good as far as they go, but there are lots of other factors and pros and cons to each decision. Yes, you should certainly compare the monthly rent to what your mortgage payments would be, as you have done. Yes, you should consider how long you might live there. If you do move out, how difficult will it be to sell the house, given market conditions in your area? If you try to rent it, how difficult is it to find a tenant, and what rent could you expect to receive? Speaking of moving out and renting the place: Who will manage the property and do maintenance? Would you still be close enough to do this yourself? Would you be willing and able to spend the time? Or would you have to hire someone? Also, what if the tenant does not pay the rent? How difficult is it to evict someone in your area? Speaking from personal experience, I own a rental property in Ohio, and the law says you can evict someone with 3 days notice. But in practice they don't just leave, so then you have to take them to court. It takes months to get a court date and months longer before the police actually show up to order them out of the house. And you have to pay the lawyer and court fees. In that time they're living in your property rent free. In my case one tenant also totally trashed the place and stole everything that wasn't nailed down -- I had to spend $13,000 on repairs to a house worth a fraction of what you're talking about. Being a landlord is NOT just a matter of sitting back and collecting rent checks: there's a fair amount of work and a lot of risk. What do you have to pay the realtor, and what other closing costs would you have to pay? Where I live, realtors typically charge 6 to 7%. You may also have to pay for an appraisal, title search, and bunch of other little fees. Mortgage interest is deductible on your federal income taxes. Rent is not. If you own and something needs to be repaired, you have to pay for it. If you rent, the landlord has to pay for it.  If you own, you can do pretty much what you like with the property -- subject to zoning ordinances and building codes and maybe homeowners association rules, but you should have a pretty good amount of leeway. If you want to install ceiling fans or remodel the kitchen or add a deck, it's up to you. If you're renting, it's up to the landlord to decide what you can do to the property. And if he agrees to let you do some upgrade, when you're done, it belongs to him. With a condo, you are not usually responsible for exterior maintenance, like mowing the lawn and trimming the bushes and washing the outer walls. With a house, you are. You might pay someone to do this, which adds to the cost, or you might do it yourself, which takes time. Insurance on a condo or aparment is much less than insurance on a house. In my area, anyway. You should investigate those costs. If you buy, eventually you own the place and don't have to pay a mortgage any more. If you rent, you continue to pay forever. (Even if you don't live in the same house forever, as long as you don't take a terrible loss when you sell you should then have some money left over to apply to the next house, so you are still building equity.) Some of these pros and cons are easily quantifiable. Others are probabilities, like how likely is it that your water heater will fail?, and how long is it likely to take to find a buyer if you want to sell? And others are pretty subjective.


> No, by any means! In certain countries, women don't have the same privileges as men when it comes to their finances. Everex allows them to enter into the digital economy allowing them to bank in a way.  The best way of fixing that issue is by combatting the cultural and religious source of that inequality. Simply providing access could be dangerous for these women if they're discovered.


"Everything post 2009 (actually late 2007 through 2008 since that's when the financial crisis occurred) has also been a ""unique once-in-a-lifetime circumstance"". QE on this scale is unprecedented. The only time it's been done before is by the Bank of Japan in the early 2000s and that has been proven to be ineffective. Now you've got the US, the UK, and the EU all doing it."


I think it would have the same effect as paying off a compulsive gambler's debts. Until Congress and the people who vote for them can exercise some fiscal responsibility sending more money to Washington is pointless. In fact, I'd argue that if you were a multi-trillionaire and could pay off the whole thing through a donation, we'd be back to deficits within a decade (or less).


"First, there are not necessarily two accounts involved.  Usually the receiving party can take the check to the bank on which it is drawn and receive cash.  In this case, there is only one bank, it can look to see that the account on which the check is drawn has sufficient funds, and make an (essentially irrevocable) decision to pay the bearer.  (Essentially irrevocable precisely because the bearer did not necessarily have to present account information.) The more usual case is that the receiving party deposits the check into an account at their own bank.  The receiving party's bank then (directly or indirectly - in the US via the Federal Reserve) presents the check to the paying party's bank.  At that point if the there are insufficient funds, the check ""bounces"" and the receiving party's account will be debited.  The receiving party's bank knows that account number because, in this case, the receiving party is a customer of the bank.  This is why funds from check deposits are typically not available for immediate withdrawal."


Bad idea. If you lose your job and need to pay medical expenses, you can withdraw penalty-free. If you lose your job and just withdraw, you will have lower income and lower tax, though you will pay a penalty. If you don't lose your job today, consider your 401(k) an additional protection, just in case you do lose it tomorrow. Just pick the least risky investment option and relax.  Besides, it will diversify your investment and protect you from your own investment decisions. If you are so ready to take a 10% loss, you are likely not so skilled in this area, so it's good to have a backup plan. But of course, do contribute 3% so you get a match.


Fresh bulk mini calla lilies for your wedding event. We ship premium calla lilies direct from our awarded calla lily farms. Lola Blooms is a wholesale supplier of fresh mini calla lilies. We offer the bride beautiful colors in a wide mini calla lily assortment for their dream calla lily wedding.


One way of looking at this (just expanding on my comment on Dheer's answer): If the funds were in EUR in Germany already and not in the UK, would you be choosing to move them to the UK (or a GBP denominated bank account) and engage in currency speculation, betting that the pound will improve?   If you would... great, that's effectively exactly what you're doing: leave the money in GBP and hope the gamble pays off.   But if you wouldn't do that, well you probably shouldn't be leaving the funds in GBP just because they originated there; bring them back to Germany and do whatever you'd do with them there.


"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-yellen-idUSKBN19I2I5) reduced by 64%. (I'm a bot) ***** > LONDON U.S. Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen said on Tuesday that she does not believe that there will be another financial crisis for at least as long as she lives, thanks largely to reforms of the banking system since the 2007-09 crash.  > Yellen said it would &quot;Not be a good thing&quot; if reforms of the financial services industry since the crisis were unwound, and urged those who had helped manage the fallout at the time to be vocal in preventing such a dilution.  > Yellen declined to comment when asked about her relationship with Trump but said she had a good working relationship with U.S. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6jys86/feds_yellen_expects_no_new_financial_crisis_in/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~154464 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*: **U.S.**^#1 **Yellen**^#2 **bank**^#3 **crisis**^#4 **financial**^#5"


For a young person with good income, 50k sitting in a savings account earning nothing is really bad. You're losing money because of inflation, and losing on the growth potential of investing. Please rethink your aversion to retirement accounts. You will make more money in the long run through lower taxes by taking advantage of these accounts. At a minimum, make a Roth IRA contribution every year and max it out ($5500/yr right now). Time is of the essence! You have until April 15th to make your 2014 contribution! Equities (stocks) do very well in the long run. If you don't want to actively manage your portfolio, there is nothing wrong (and you could do a lot worse) than simply investing in a low-fee S&P 500 index fund.


There are lots of answers here, but I'll add my two cents... The best way to win is not to play. MLM is not a viable business model. Don't go in thinking you'll beat the system by trying harder than everyone else. The only way you'll make any money is by recruiting lots of people, and selling products that can be obtained for cheaper elsewhere at a normal store. If your friend already committed to the decision and they're wise as to what's going on, yet gullible enough to try anyways, have them think about the ethics of exploiting the people down the pyramid from them. Maybe that will change their mind. All of the other answers about not investing too much of your own money remain true. You don't want to blow your life savings on a pipe dream.


"Valuation by definition is what an item is worth, not what you paid for it. Net worth should be market value for fixed assets or ""capital"" goods. I would consider this cars, real property, furniture, jewelry, appliances, tools, etc.  Everything else can be valued by liquidation value. You can use valuation guides for tax deductions as a way to guide your valuation. Insurance companies usually just pick a percentage of your home's value as a guesstimate for content value. I could see doing this as a way to guide purchase decisions for appliances, cars or the like. But if you are trying to figure out the market value of your socks and underwear, I would argue that you're doing something that's a little silly."


Will it possible that they will credit my salary in my India bank account from US as normal process, If i work for them from here? There is no issue for an US based company to pay you a salary in India. You can get funds in your own savings account. You need to calculate and pay taxes on your own.


Assuming the US, if a human assessor audited you, could you show a future profit motive or will they conclude you are expensing a hobby? If you answer yes, you are likely to only be deducting limited expenses this year, carrying forward losses to your profitable years.  See the examples in pub 535: http://www.irs.gov/publications/p535/ch01.html#en_US_2014_publink1000208633


"The way you phrased what you said was bothering me.  What is happening is that many, a great many, die from diseases that would be effectively treated in other countries. Here the care keeps getting more and more abbreviated and more and more people fall through the cracks. Also, the US is [trying to use trade with the US](http://www.ttip2014.eu) as a means of eliminating new public healthcare and incrementally dismantling existing public health care and access to generic medicines around the globe.   Since thats obviously ""what rich Americans want"" </sarc> (people really say that) having elected neoliberal Obama."


The short term bond fund, which you are pretty certain to have as an option, functions in this capacity.  Its return will be low, but positive, in all but the most dramatic of rising rate scenarios. I recall a year in the 90's when rates rose enough that the bond fund return was zero or very slightly negative. It's not likely that you'd have access to simple money market or cash option.


Most CDs at most banks can be set to automatically renew (ask your bank for details).   If you bought a 1 year CD every month, electing to automatically renew and you wouldn't have to touch it again after your 12 initial purchases if you didn't want to.


>Discussing the impacts of saddling 18 year olds with 10s of thousands of dollars of debt isn't being whiny.   Right? This has potential to affect everything. If these kids aren't buying houses, starting families, not buying cars, etc. etc...   It all has implications.


"As documented in MyFICO (http://www.myfico.com/credit-education/whats-in-your-credit-score/), there are several factors that affect credit scores. Payment history (35%) The first thing any lender wants to know is whether you've paid past   credit accounts on time. This is one of the most important factors in   a FICO® Score. As @Ben Miller mentioned, checking your credit report to determine whether or not late payments were reported to credit bureaus will give you a sense of whether or not this was effected. You mentioned several bounced payments, which certainly could have caused this. This would be my largest concern with a closed account, is to investigate why and what was reported to the bureaus, and in turn, other lenders. Also, since this has the highest impact on credit scores (35%), it's arguably, the most important. This is further detailed here, which details the public record and late payment effect on your score. Amounts owed (30%) Having credit accounts and owing money on them does not necessarily   mean you are a high-risk borrower with a low FICO® Score....However,   when a high percentage of a person's available credit is been used,   this can indicate that a person is overextended, and is more likely to   make late or missed payments. Given that this card was closed, whatever your credit limit was is now no longer added into your total credit limit. However, your utilization on that card is gone (assuming it gets paid off), depending on any other credit lines, and since you reported ""heavy use"" that could be a positive impact, though likely not. Length of credit history (15%) In general, a longer credit history will increase your FICO® Scores.   However, even people who haven't been using credit long may have high   FICO Scores, depending on how the rest of the credit report looks. Depending how old your card was, and particularly since this was your only credit card, it will likely impact your average age of credit lines, depending on other lines of credit (loans etc) you have open. This accounts for about 15% of your score, so not as large of an impact as the first two.  Credit mix in use (10%) FICO Scores will consider your mix of credit cards, retail accounts,   installment loans, finance company accounts and mortgage loans. Given that this was your only credit card, your loan mix has been reduced (possibly to none). New credit (10%) Research shows that opening several credit accounts in a short period   of time represents a greater risk - especially for people who don't   have a long credit history. This focuses on credit inquiries, which as you mentioned, you will likely have another either re-opening this credit card or opening another at some point in the future.  Regardless, paying off the rest of that card is a priority, as interest rates on average credit cards are over 13%, and often higher (source). This rate comes into play when not paying the balance in full every month, and also as @Ben Miller suggested, I would not utilize a credit card without being able to pay it in full. It can often be a dangerous cycle of debt."


I really loved reading your blog. It was very well authored and easy to understand. Unlike additional blogs I have read which are really not tht good. I also found your posts very interesting. In fact after reading, I had to go show it to my friend and he enjoyed it as well!


"This is the sad state of US stock markets and Regulation T. Yes, while options have cleared & settled for t+1 (trade +1 day) for years and now actually clear ""instantly"" on some exchanges, stocks still clear & settle in t+3.  There really is no excuse for it. If you are in a margin account, regulations permit the trading of unsettled funds without affecting margin requirements, so your funds in effect are available immediately after trading but aren't considered margin loans.  Some strict brokers will even restrict the amount of uncleared margin funds you can trade with (Scottrade used to be hyper safe and was the only online discount broker that did this years ago); others will allow you to withdraw a large percentage of your funds immediately (I think E*Trade lets you withdraw up to 90% of unsettled funds immediately). If you are in a cash account, you are authorized to buy with unsettled funds, but you can't sell purchases made on unsettled funds until such funds clear, or you'll be barred for 90 days from trading as your letter threatened; besides, most brokers don't allow this.  You certainly aren't allowed to withdraw unsettled funds (by your broker) in such an account as it would technically constitute a loan for which you aren't even liable since you've agreed to no loan contract, a margin agreement.  I can't be sure if that actually violates Reg T, but when I am, I'll edit. While it is true that all marketable options are cleared through one central entity, the Options Clearing Corporation, with stocks, clearing & settling still occurs between brokers, netting their transactions between each other electronically. All financial products could clear & settle immediately imo, and I'd rather not start a firestorm by giving my opinion why not. Don't even get me started on the bond market... As to the actual process, it's called ""clearing & settling"". The general process (which can generally be applied to all financial instruments from cash deposits to derivatives trading) is: The reason why all of the old financial companies were grouped on Wall St. is because they'd have runners physically carting all of the certificates from building to building.  Then, they discovered netting so slowed down the process to balance the accounts and only cart the net amounts of certificates they owed each other.  This is how we get the term ""bankers hours"" where financial firms would close to the public early to account for the days trading.  While this is all really done instantly behind your back at your broker, they've conveniently kept the short hours."


"This is what this sounds like to me: https://www.thebalance.com/having-a-garage-sale-or-yard-sale-what-to-do-first-399030 also: http://blogs.hrblock.com/2012/07/25/garage-sale-money-does-the-irs-need-to-know/ Selling a personal item at a loss is generally not a taxable event. You cannot report it as a loss, and the IRS can't tax a transaction like that. If you really want to include these as sales as part of your LLC, you'll probably have to pay tax if you list it as income. I'm just confused as to why you'd want to do that, if you know that you're selling these particular items at a loss, and you also know that you have no documentation for them. I just wouldn't report anything you sold at a loss and treat it as ""garage sale items"" separate from your business."


"I know I replied in another section of this tread as well, but are you looking at MS/Smith Barney, trowe advisory planning, or directly within their mutual fund equity research? The reason I ask is because often there is a misunderstanding between Financial Advisory (FA) work and working directly within a fund doing equity research (Equity Analyst).  People often think FA's do a lot of research, and they do, but you'll effectively blackball yourself from **ever** entering research because there's a ""sales-person"" stigma attached to being an FA."


I've considered just calling the out-of-network hospital and asking   them to reduce the charges. Ideally they would send my health   insurance provider a smaller bill which I could just pay. However I   want to be careful about how I proceed. Yes, that's what you should be doing. They might give you a discount, but even if not - they will definitely be willing to work out a payment plan for you so that you could pay in installments and not in a lump sum. I have experience with the El Camino group in California, that did just that. It was several hundreds, so they didn't give a discount, but were able to work out an installment plan for several months without much hassle. That is something to do before you get to lawyers. I'm not sure I know how the lawyer could be useful to you, other than claiming bankruptcy or waiting for them to turn to collections and then fight those. You should also work with your insurance. How much is your deductible? If your deductible is so high that it exceeds the several thousands bill you got - do you have a HSA? FSA? These will allow you paying the bill with pre-tax money, saving quite a lot (depending on your brackets and how much you put there). I would expect the insurance to bill you for the deductible, and cover all the rest. Is it not what is happening?


"aww man . . that's really disappointing, I was expecting something a lot more imaginative and trendy . . .  Shameless & Ignorant is a really good start . . .but Hitler?   You see perception of Hitler is what they have created themselves and as such are in control it, and own it and are not affected by it because it is a reminder of their victory and rewrite of history according to their own narrative.  You should try something more personal over which he has no control.  Keep the ""Shameless & Ignorant"" then add stuff like  Shameless & Ignorant + Bankrupt Charlatan  . . .the bankrupt part is a sore point in his history and makes him wince . . being called a fake is his greatest fear  Shameless & Ignorant + pussy grabber  Shameless & Ignorant + daughter lover  Shameless & Ignorant + Jew bitch  Shameless & Ignorant + Orange Orangutan  Shameless & Ignorant + Retarded idiot  Shameless & Ignorant + PePe le Pew   (The Skunk)  Shameless & Ignorant + little handed man  But if diplomacy is your main concern and you would like a retort with something with ""Man"" in it  and still sound as if you are talking down to him just go with  Shameless & Ignorant Orange man . . .being Orange is something that hurts him at his very core and address his deepest insecurities about his own persona  Please, as world leaders it is your duty to put some effort into your insults and lets not degenerate into  Your are an idiot . .you are a bigger one . .your are a bigger one times 2 . .your a bigger one million times . ..  Put your heart into it. and show us you deserve our respect and votes"


"We do vote for the good of our community. That is why the vast area of the country was painted red after the outcome of the elections. We live in the country because we don't want the social or governmental problems cities have. We own our land, pay taxes on our land and we will be damned to have people tell us what we can or can't do with our land. From where I sit, I see a lot of urban people wish they could live in the country, but most simply can't, they are wage earners. Many ""city slickers"" have bought a farm only to lose their ass and farm a few years later, they learn the hard way that experience trumps education. So let me ask you, what can you do? Build a barn or house, weld, fabricate your own parts, lite to medium vet work, grow food, run heavy equipment, plumb, wire electricity?"


There is empirical evidence of a correlation between independence of central banks and lower unemployment, lower inflation, and more stable prices.  The argument as to why this is comes from when govts control central banking more stongly, then politicians get involved, and they vote for more/easier money, which looks good in the short run, thereby getting them votes, but causes inflation/unemployment/price volatility in the long run. When governments control banking you sometimes end up with Zimbabwe stlye inflation (well, not as bad as Zimbabwe often, but without the govt able to add money at will it is much harder).  A significant feature of most successful modern central banks is to remove the control from the hands of ametuers, i.e., politicians, and put control into the hands of skilled economists. Ever notice the Fed chairman (and many of the board) are actually very well trained economists?  Full transparency is also bad since some areas of monetary policy need knowledge to be kept from the markets in order to be effective, otherwise the Fed loses some of the tools they need to try and target inflation.  Finally, there are quite a lot of regulations that the Fed does follow, including regular outside audits, that keep them in check.