A stock is an ownership interest in a company.  There can be multiple classes of shares, but to simplify, assuming only one class of shares, a company issues some number of shares, let's say 1,000,000 shares and you can buy shares of the company. If you own 1,000 shares in this example, you would own one one-thousandth of the company.  Public companies have their shares traded on the open market and the price varies as demand for the stock comes and goes relative to people willing to sell their shares. You typically buy stock in a company because you believe the company is going to prosper into the future and thus the value of its stock should rise in the open market. A bond is an indebted interest in a company.  A company issues bonds to borrow money at an interest rate specified in the bond issuance and makes periodic payments of principal and interest.  You buy bonds in a company to lend the company money at an interest rate specified in the bond because you believe the company will be able to repay the debt per the terms of the bond.  The value of a bond as traded on the open exchange varies as the prevailing interest rates vary.  If you buy a bond for $1,000 yielding 5% interest and interest rates go up to 10%, the value of your bond in the open market goes down so that the payment terms of 5% on $1,000 matches hypothetical terms of 10% on a lesser principal amount.  Whatever lesser principal amount at the new rate would lead to the same payment terms determines the new market value.   Alternatively, if interest rates go down, the current value of your bond increases on the open market to make it appear as if it is yielding a lower rate. Regardless of the market value, the company continues to pay interest on the original debt per its terms, so you can always hold onto a bond and get the original promised interest as long as the company does not go bankrupt. So in summary, bonds tend to be a safer investment that offers less potential return.  However, this is not always the case, since if interest rates skyrocket, your bond's value will plummet, although you could just hold onto them and get the low rate originally promised.


Your quote from the CBO is talking about a actual subsidy. As stated, there was a cash value difference between what the Treasury purchased troubled assets from banks at and what the market value of those securities were.   This (the point mentioned in the article) is not an actual subsidy.  As a counter argument to your first paragraph, look at Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns.


this sounds right, it echoes what i notice.  to fight the tendency in myself i make a point of trying to engage with people who have very different views than mine, and understand their viewpoint.  but over the last couple weeks its become very difficult


The basis of the home is the cost of land and material. That's it.  Your time isn't added to basis. No different than if you spend 1000 hours in a soup kitchen. You deduct miles for your car and expenses you can document but you can't deduct your time.  Over 2 years, you could have a gain up to $500K per married couple and pay no tax.


> Every damn thing is negotiable.  Except no its not, if you feed all of your top desires into your HR team and no one hits all of the quals, they simply exclude them. If you feed it into Taleo that you want to pay 48k, and someone applies who wants 50k? Excluded.   Further, not having a clear idea of what the pay is for a position is a bad sign for the overall competence of your team.


There is no age-limit, in fact the sooner you start the better - the sooner the money starts to compound.


You do not need to set this up as a loan. Try finding an Indian student. He is eligible to get cash (using a travel card, may be) from India tax-free. As long as it doesn't exceed the i-20 amount, he will not have any problems. Since, $10,000 is very small amount, the student shouldn't be having any problem.


TD now has crossborder banking so you can set up a no-fee no-interest USD account with Tdbank.com and transfer money and pay bills in the US. You just need a minimum balance of $100. I might try Paypal before going that route though.


Lol cmon dude, don't tell me you've never been through Charlotte's airport. You've gotta be a complete west coaster for that.  I don't think law was that unique relative to the rest of the market. It was no different than coming out of college - I looked at cities with jobs and picked the one where I found the best job. That was likely true for a lot of different young pros in a lot of different markets. The big cities recovered faster because they had a range of different businesses within them.  NY had jobs, that was why I went. I interviewed in ATL with a 3.5 from a T-14 law school in 09 and got nothing. I could feel the city's law jobs hadn't recovered so I dipped.


I own a few MLPs that operate oil/gas pipelines (TSE:IPL-UN, NYSE:BPT, NYSE:APL), and I'm very happy with their performance. Because they don't pay corporate tax MLPs tend to pay higher dividends than most regular stocks. I pay H&R Block to do my taxes, and they sort out all the arcane details.


Easy... Use cash, or keep a ledger.


I agree with this.  I'll also add that if we get a Democrat elected things will stay about the same.  If we get a Republican things will get much worse.  I could be wrong.  Depends on how much influence the Tea Party has on Republican Presidential policy.  (I'm betting a lot.)  But a Republican congress won't obstruct a Republican president, so maybe we'll actually get some economic stimulus.


Both. It's a hell of a bargain. $4bn for a franchise that will run for decades, every film nigh on guaranteed to bring in $500m+ in theatrical PLUS merchandishing, plus all the other stuff they bought? (all catalogue, ILM, etc etc etc).


Wrong. If an industry needs 3 widget makers, and there are only 2 widget makers on Earth, their salary is going to be dramatically higher  (and thus cut into margins) than a world where 3 are needed but 30 exist.   To claim that supply and demand doesn't exist in the labor market or isn't a primary driver of wages is so fallacious that it's nothing short of retarded.


Roth and 401k are first because with the Roth you have tax free withdrawals (awesome!) and with the 401k you have tax free contributions (awesome!) as well as potential employer matching.  Traditional IRAs would be the final thing I would contribute to after both of those.  And in your case, unless you make around 150k, you aren't maxing your 401k; so I'd do that first.


First, you can look up the property tax of the building you are in for an exact number. Go to you town's tax office or look at Zillow. You need to claim the rent as income, but will take all expenses as well as depreciation on half the building. The numbers may well work in your favor, especially as a resident landlord. I still own a rental in the next state, but it's 2 hour away, so I'm paying pros to do the simplest things. On site, you can handle all maintenance and save that way.  If the cash flow looks like it's better than what you have right now, it might be time to buy. Without seeing the numbers I can't point out what you might be missing.


Free logo makers are good to use for personal blogs. But, for companies or business, we have to hire a professional graphic designer or agency. If someone having money constraints, crowdsourcing is the best option as one get good logo designs at affordable price. My 2 cents!


"Ok, bullshit, then.   You are seriously telling me that you are too fucking stupid to go and drop off your mail and get a tracking number, or ""return receipt requested"", but you can pay UPS?   They lost 27 packages out of how many?    Either you are an incompetent or a liar. I would wager on the latter."


Doomsayers can just buy the 5x Short ETFs instead of the 5x long, see where it leaves them. People who don't understand leverage shouldn't be writing articles about them. 3 seems to be a valid point to some degree, but why should there be a cap at 3x for ETFs when you can get way more leverage with other instruments.  I feel like these are the people who blame anything that qualifies as a derivative for 2008.


Mint.com is a fantastic free personal finance software that can assist you with managing your money, planning budgets and setting financial goals. I've found the features to be more than adequate with keeping me informed of my financial situation. The advantage with Mint over Microsoft Money is that all of your debit/credit transactions are automatically imported and categorized (imperfectly but good enough). Mint is capable of handling bank accounts, credit card accounts, loans, and assets (such as cars, houses, etc). The downsides are:


I was unemployed for 9 months (have been gainfully employed again for 2 months now).  I'm in digital marketing so I did some social media volunteer work for a high profile non-profit and put it in my resume.  While there were a number of factors that helped me get a job, this did in part contribute to it as I demonstrated that I'm actually interested in my career path and staying current. In addition, my work was tangible and public, which was a huge plus as I had a portfolio.  So I would highly recommend volunteering for a local organization within your area of expertise to show that your skills are current.  In speaking with HR people, skills atrophy is one of the main reasons why longer term unemployed people are not as attractive.


"The country from which you purchase stock cannot charge you tax on either income or capital gains. Taxation is based on residency, so even when you purchase foreign stock its the tax laws of Malaysia (as your country of residence) that matter. At the time of writing, Malaysia does not levy any capital gains tax and there is no income tax charged on dividends so you won't have to declare or pay any tax on your stocks regardless of where you buy them from. The only exception to this is Dividend Withholding Tax, which is a special tax taken by the government of the country you bought the stock from before it is paid to your account. You do not need to declare this tax as it his already been taken by the time you receive your dividend. The US withholding tax rate on dividends is 30%, although this can be reduced to 15% if there as a tax treaty in place between the US and your country of residence. Malaysia does have a double taxation agreement with the US (see here: http://www.mida.gov.my/env3/index.php?page=double-taxation-agreement) but it is flagged as a ""limited"" agreement.  You'd need to find the full text of the agreement to see whether a reduced rate of dividend withholding tax would be available in the Malaysia/US treaty. See my other answer for more details on withholding taxes and how to partially reclaim under a double tax treaty: What is the dividend tax rate for UK stock Note: Although the taxation rules of both countries are similar, I am a resident of Singapore not Malaysia so I can't speak from first hand experience, but current Malaysia tax rates are easy to find online. The rest of this information is common to any non-US/UK resident investor (as long as you're not a US person)."


"statement at the end of ""Betting On Zero (2017):  >To settle the complaint the FTC required Herbalife to pay a $200 million dollar fine and ""fundamentally restructure its business"". > >Herbalife's CEO Michael Johnson described the TFC settlement as ""an acknowledgement that our business model is sound."" > >Four months later he announced he was stepping down as DEO of Herbalife. > >On December 21, 2016, Donald Trump named Carl Icahn *(zillionaire, portrayed in the film as an advocate of Herbalife's deceptive business model)* special advisor to the President on regulatory >reform.  [another perspective](http://fortune.com/carl-icahn-bill-ackman-feud/)  [my take](http://imgur.com/a/ESRH5)"


Look, bro, I'm not trying to stop you.  By all means take your mom's SSDI' and sink it into this shit.  I really *give zero fucks* except for when you lose everything, when it's funny to be me.


I have lived in my RC Home since 2008 and I have had ZERO PROBLEMS! We are in the process of building another RC home in a different community. The only thing I've done was replace the roof ONLY because of a very bad hail storm (baseball sized) that came through OKC. My mom also purchased a RC home in 2007 and didn't have any problems. What buyers have to do is be involved the whole time before, during, and after the build. Take lots of pictures of the entire process if you can. We went by our build daily (we didn't live that far), but if you can go by your build at least once a week, it helps. During my inspection, there was a hairline crack in the baseboard and it was corrected immediately. If you have a good inspector and sales rep that genuinely cares, you will be just fine and will love your home. Good Job RC HOMES!


If she selects 2012 and contributes $500, she will have contributed the maximum allowable amount for 2012, and has the option of contributing the maximum amount for 2013 as well (if she chooses to do so). If she does not max out her contribution for 2012 by April 15, 2013, that opportunity is lost, though she continues to have the option of contributing the maximum amount for 2013. Whether contributing the maximum allowable amount to a Roth IRA is a good thing or bad thing is something about which unreasonable people might differ. Edit:  @JBKing's answer makes a very good point that I will elaborate on and incorporate into this answer. Eligibility to make a contribution for 2012 is presumably a given at this point (there is at least $5000 in earned income and AGI is not too large (see Pub 950 for details)), but eligibility to make a contribution for 2013 is as yet undetermined. If the 2013 AGI turns out to be more than the limit so that the OP's sister cannot contribute to a Roth IRA for 2013, that contribution for 2013 made today will have to be withdrawn or re-characterized as a non-deductible contribution to a Traditional IRA for 2013. To the best of my knowledge, it will not be possible to re-characterize it as a Roth IRA contribution for 2012 at that point in time. So the opportunity to add $500 to the Roth IRA will be irretrievably lost. As JoeTaxpayer says, why not keep options open by making a full contribution for 2012 while the opportunity is there? In this sense, I think there is a downside to choosing 2013 instead of 2012 for that $500 contribution.


"I know of one practical difference between business checks (8"" check) and personal checks (6"" check) dealing with the paper check conversion rule to electronic debit.   The National ACH Association, created a rule that allows receivers of checks without an ""Auxiliary On-Us"" field, to convert your check into an electronic debit via the ACH network.  By default, 6"" checks (personal checks) do NOT have the AUX ON-US field, and are eligible to be converted to ACH debit. If you do not want your paper checks converted to ACH debits, then start using business checks with the AUX ON-US field populated.  You can use business checks for business or personal checking accounts. More information can be found below: http://www.deluxe.com/miscfiles/pdf/AuxOnUsField.pdf http://www.achrulesonline.org/"


"Thanks.  This is super simplified as I said.  It gets much deeper when you start looking at costs of capital, country risk premiums (for projects in emerging markets), ""risk free rate of return"" (putting cash in guaranteed returns such as a us treasury note), mutually exclusive projects, etc.  But the basic concept is... what is the minimum required return on a project to justify choosing to pursue it.  If you borrow money via loan at 10%, your required rate of return on whatever project you invest it in has to be at least that 10%.  Otherwise you're better off just not doing anything."


The problem is I can't do anything with those morals. I can't grow my company with it, I can't pay my employees with it and I can't buy things with it.   You should he as moral as possible, but when you are so moral that you start making moral choices that just doesn't cost you money but can sink the company or increase the workload on your employees you've done an disservice to your employees.


At the base of it all is the massive demand side subsidization of the health care industry primarily through Medicaid and Medicare. It's econ 101 that massive demand side subsidization drives prices up, but nobody wants to emphasize this point because too many pockets are being filled by the subsidization.


"[Russians Blame The US For The Violence In Eastern Ukraine](http://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/2dvpku/russians_blame_the_us_for_the_violence_in_eastern/)  [Eric Kraus](http://topics.bloomberg.com/eric-kraus/) *Who e hell else can you blame? The Victoria Nuland tapes tell it all. It was a Washington set up, and with their signature diplomacy they will ""liberate"" that unfortunate country precisely as they did Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan. Or, as they so notably put it 40 years ago while murdering 3 million Vietnamese - ""the village (country) had to be destroyed in order for it to be saved!""*"


">Unyielding Realism in the Climate Debate! CO2 is a Product of Human Breath, Not A Pollutant! CO2 is A Plant Food!  Climate Change Has Been Going On Forever!   >Any actions having the intent to aid the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to inflict harm on the US, including alleging that IPCC texts have any authority on the territory of the United States or in respect to the United States, committed by a person owing his or her loyalty to the United States, might constitute **treason**, as defined in 18 U.S. Code § 2381.  great source OP.  ""samizdat"" eh?"


The loss for B can be used to write off the gain for A.  You will fill out a schedule 3 with cost base and proceeds of disposition.  This will give you a $0 capital gain for the year and an amount of $5 (50% of the $10 loss) you can carry forward to offset future capital gains.  You can also file a T1-a and carry the losses back up to 3 years if you're so inclined.  It can't be used to offset other income (unless you die). Your C and D trades can't be on income account except for very unusual circumstances.  It's not generally acceptable to the CRA for you to use 2 separate accounting methods.  There are some intricacies but you should probably just use capital gains.   There is one caveat that if you do short sales of Canadian listed securities, they will be on income account unless you fill out form T-123 and elect to have them all treated as capital gains. I just remembered one wrinkle in carrying forward capital losses.  They don't reduce your capital gains anymore, but they reduce your taxable income.  This means your net income won't be reduced and any benefits that are calculated from that (line 236), will not get an increase.


That's really kind of the frustrating and problematic part of it. Their service is impeccable, but it should also cost a lot more than it does, so they have to do Monopoly type tactics to keep it sustainable in the short term. I love Amazon but it's really interesting how everyone (myself included) is just kinda nonchalant about them becoming a monopoly.


"P/E is a pretty poor way to value the company as it exists today.  The company generates free cash flow yield of 2.5-3.3% which isn't remarkably high, but it's not nearly as bad as the earnings yield of 1.1%.  But let's operate within the P/E ratio for right now.  The company sells $40 billion of ""stuff"" each year with a net margin of 2%.  If they increased prices on every product by 1% (which really wouldn't be _that_ noticeable) their profit would grow 50%.  Thus, P/E drops from 90 to 60.    SGA expenses equal ~20% of their operating costs.  Cut 5% of SGA and you get the same 1% increase in net margin.  This could come from cost-cutting today, or by greater economies of scale in the future while keeping prices the same.    So, yes, it's priced as a growth firm, but it doesn't necessarily need customer growth in the traditional sense to be fairly-valued."


When I was looking for positions and they brought up salary, I always gave a range with what I wanted at the low end and then add on 20-40k to the high end.    Example 90-130, oh, wow, we can't pay 130, would 95 be ok?  sure, that's in my range, sounds great.  My 2nd job MANY moons ago they asked the same question, I gave a range (too narrow) and they gave the top end of the range, I knew I asked for too little....  My current company has salary bands which encompass a job title and a salary range, and the job title's ranges can overlap: ex: Junior 20-60, Regular: 40-90, Senior: 60-120, Lead: 100-160.  This allows for regional variances in cost of living and for raises without a promotion into a new band.


"I suggest that you're really asking questions surrounding three topics: (1) what allocation hedges your risks but also allows for upside? (2) How do you time your purchases so you're not getting hammered by exchange rates? (3) How do you know if you're doing ok? Allocations Your questions concerning allocation are really ""what if"" questions, as DoubleVu points out. Only you can really answer those. I would suggest building an excel sheet and thinking through the scenarios of at least 3 what-ifs.  A) What if you keep your current allocations and anything in local currency gets cut in half in value? Could you live with that? B) What if you allocate more to ""stable economies"" and your economy recovers... so stable items grow at 5% per year, but your local investments grow 50% for the next 3 years? Could you live with that missed opportunity?  C) What if you allocate more to ""stable economies"" and they grow at 5%... while SA continues a gradual slide? Remember that slow or flat growth in a stable currency is the same as higher returns in a declining currency. I would trust your own insights as a local, but I would recommend thinking more about how this plays out for your current investments.  Timing You bring up concerns about ""timing"" of buying expensive foreign currencies... you can't time the market. If you knew how to do this with forex trading, you wouldn't be here :).  Read up on dollar cost averaging. For most people, and most companies with international exposure, it may not beat the market in the short term, but it nets out positive in the long term.  Rebalancing For you there will be two questions to ask regularly: is the allocation still correct as political and international issues play out? Have any returns or losses thrown your planned allocation out of  alignment?  Put your investment goals in writing, and revisit it at least once a year to evaluate whether any adjustments would be wise to make.  And of course, I am not a registered financial professional, especially not in SA, so I obviously recommend taking what I say with a large dose of salt."


Whether it is better to buy or to rent depends on several factors.  Most of them are fairly uncertain, but calculations can be made to see how they play out in the long-term for insight into their impact. The results below are made on the basis that both the buyer and the tenant spend the same amount, in this case $1,480.03 per month.  The buyer pays his mortgage and when it's all paid for he switches to investing $1,480.03 per month at the fund deposit rate.  Meanwhile the tenant pays rent and invests whatever remains from $1,480.03 per month at the fund deposit rate. The amount $1,480.03 is set by the mortgage case and used by buyer and tenant for equal comparison. Taking some hopefully not too unrealistic rate estimates, these are the calculation inputs:- (All percentages are expressed as effective annual rates) Plot of buyer's and tenant's accumulated assets over time The simulation extends for twice the term of the mortgage.  If the investment fund can return 7% and a $900 rental is comparable to a $300,000 house then there isn't much of a compelling case either way. Lowering the expected fund return shows a different picture.  Sticking with the 5.0% fund return, lowering the rent brings the tenant's asset accumulation closer to the buyer's.  If there is a particular set of inputs you would like to see plotted I'm sure I could add another example to this post. There is also an interactive version of the calculation which you can find via this page.  However, unlike the examples above which include a deposit and grant, it just explores the simple case of a 100% mortgage. The aim is just to see how rate variations affect asset value over time.


There's no magic. Usually these models set out to replace 60-65% of your gross income in retirement.  For example, if you: You'll retire with about $850k. That will let you generate an income stream of around 55k for your expected lifespan. Is 15% the right answer for you? No idea -- it depends on what you want, how you invest, and what you can afford.


I think the best advice you're going to get on the subject is: If you made $250k in half a year, you definitely have enough to hire an accountant!  Get professional help on the subject, and they'll make sure you don't end up getting in any legal trouble.


The broker will probably submit records to the IRS, so there isn't anonymity at that level...


"> So you are saying down the road the FED might cancel out the amount of T-Bills and MBS they hold with the Treasury?  I'm saying they don't have to, for the US government will never have difficulty servicing its entirely USD-denominated debt. So if you think doing so would confuse/anger foreign nations, fine, don't do it.  I *would* however advise that the government stops issuing 10yr bonds in favour of funding itself off no more than say 28 day T-Bills. The reason being is that the latter's basically just creating a whole unneeded industry of speculators providing an entirely unneeded service of ""locking in"" interest rates for the government 10yrs at a time. Waste of time, waste of resources. The goverment shouldn't be subsidising that kind of activity."


This is a tough question SFun28.  Let's try and debug the metric. First, let's expand upon the notion share price is determined in an efficient market where prospective buyers and sellers have access to info on an enterprises' cash balance and they may weigh that into their decision making.  Therefore, a desirable/undesirable cash balance may raise or lower the share price, to what extent, we do not know.   We must ask How significant is cash/debt balance in determining the market price of a stock?   As you noted, we have limited info, which may decrease the weight of these account balances in our decision process. Using a materiality level of 5% of net income of operations, cash/debt may be immaterial or not considered by an investor. investors oftentimes interpret the same information differently (e.g. Microsoft's large cash balance may show they no longer have innovative ideas worth investing in, or they are well positioned to acquire innovative companies, or weather a contraction in the sector) My guess is a math mind would ignore the affect of account balances on the equity portion of the enterprise value calculation because it may not be a factor, or because the affect is subjective.


This is the information required to wire money into your account from abroad. They would only need the account number and the ABA (routing) number to withdraw, and it is printed on every check you give.


"I disagree with BrenBran, I don't think this is qualified as unreimbursed employee expense. For it to qualify, it has to be ordinary and necessary, and specifically - necessary for your employer. This is not the case for you, as there's no such necessity. From employer's perspective, you can work from your home just as well. In fact, the expense is your personal, as it is your choice, not ""unreimbursed employee expense"" since your employer didn't even ask you to do it. You should clarify this with a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in New York)."


"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://reuters.com/article/idUSKBN19A029) reduced by 74%. (I'm a bot) ***** > If the rig count holds at current levels, the bank added, U.S. oil production would increase by 770,000 bpd between the fourth quarter of last year and the same quarter this year in the Permian, Eagle Ford, Bakken and Niobrara shale oil fields.  > India, which recently overtook Japan as Asia&#039;s second-biggest oil importer, took in 4.2 percent less crude oil in May than it did a year ago.  > In China, which is challenging the United States as the world&#039;s biggest importer, oil demand growth has been slowing for some time, albeit from record levels, and analysts expect growth to slow further in coming months.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6i59zv/oil_prices_dip_on_further_rise_in_us_drilling/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~147659 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*: **Oil**^#1 **U.S.**^#2 **percent**^#3 **year**^#4 **crude**^#5"


"Things don't just happen, you have to make them happen, you have to do the marketing and sales - link up with your prospective customers. And you have to have a well designed and well operating business. The key to good business management is ""do unto others as you would have them do unto you"" - ie. look at your business from your customers' perspective."


Good course or book that goes deeper in quant math?   There are quite a few courses and books out there that cover finance and quantiative math. What I have observed is that online courses tend to be high level, introduce concepts like option pricing, greeks etc, but does not necessarily go into details of the math behind them. There are some books which cover these ( eg: Hull book, Paul Wilmott etc) , however they are better as reference books rather than book that you can learn in a structured way.    Can someone recommend a course ( free or paid) that goes into details of the finance math including concepts like local vol, stochastic vol, derivation of  Black–Scholes , pricing of barriers, var swaps etc? Ideally these books should introduce low level concepts probability etc, have some worked examples and slowly build up into higher level concepts.    Thanks in advance.


I think following the professional money managers is a strategy worth considering. The buys from your favorite investors can be taken as strong signals. But you should never buy any stock blindly just because someone else bought it. Be sure do your due diligence before the purchase. The most important question is not what they bought, but why they bought it and how much. To add/comment on Freiheit's points:


"Aside from employer 401(k) matches (which may double your money immediately), paying off debts is almost always the best place to start. Paying off a debt early is a zero-risk operation and will earn you N% (where N is your interest rate). Is that a good deal for a zero-risk return? The closest equivalent today (Aug 24, 2012) is that you can earn about 2.68% on 10-year Treasury bonds. Unless you have a really, really good interest rate (or the interest is tax-deductible), paying off your loan will offer an excellent risk-adjusted return, so you should do that. The ""really good"" interest rate is typically a mortgage or student loans. (Mortgage interest is also tax-deductible, at least for now.) In those cases, you're not going to gain nearly as much by paying the loan early, and the loan is large - larger than the amount you want to have in risk-free investments. You want to invest for returns, as well! So you can save for retirement instead (in a 401(k) or similar account) and take on a little risk."


>So now you have to go hunting for things to be offended by? New level of desperation there.  Lolwut? You make a smug comment and someone wants to prove you wrong -- on reddit?! How dare they! How desperate to hold someone to their words! Libcucks just don't get it do they?   >Let's discuss a timely topic, which I'm sure you have an opinion on:  >Do you feel transgender people, with over 40% suicide rate, should be allowed in the military?   Well, considering that anyone with diagnosed depression or history of suicidal behaviors is already barred from joining the US military whether or not theyre transgender is irrelevant to the topic.   Yes, they ahould be allowed in assuming they meet the criteria already set in place for physical and psychological tests.  Additionally, we know that discriminating against transgender people at work is correlated with a significantly higher rate of suicide (Haas, Rodgers, Herman, 2014) so actively doing so is not only ineffective, but counterproductive.   There is no reason transgender people who meet all physical and psychological tests should not be allowed in the military.  I look forward to your intelligent discourse.


"TV is just distribution, be it a lucrative one.  The Networks (for the most part) don't produce shows.  They set up deals with production companies and if they like the idea give the go ahead to make 1/2 dozen or so episodes.  If ratings are there, then they'll order another season.  This system 'works' because the networks will hope for a 10% success rate (or something like that).  So, one in ten shows is a reasonable/major success.  Will that process end if networks end?  No, that's silly.  Production values may suffer, but how much does it cost to make a Seinfeld (excluding the incredible salaries for actors and writers)?  Not a whole lot.  Comedy Central is famous for giving comedians a shot at a show on TV in exchange for low reimbursement.  The top talent will always flow towards the best salaries, but the future may show the top talent risking their own reimbursement in exchange for profit sharing and risk taking.  Louis CK did so with his recent stand up act; he did very well and has inspired copycats.  One of the studios (or production companies) called his bypassing the tradition route of middlemen and promoters (who take the lions share of the profits) ""unamerican.""  So the establishment sees the writing on the wall and resorts to upstarts as unamerican.  They will resort to laws to try to stop consumers getting what they want, but torrents and other bypasses will keep the pressure on.    My wife will come home, turn on the TV, and zone out.  But nobody else in my social circle does this.  It may be a male-female thing, or a generational thing, I don't know.  However, ""TV has always been innovative"" is not the way I see it.  In fact, it really only blocks progress.  From cable monopolies to trying to stop VCRs, the networks are an oligopoly trying to keep competitors out."


"Not really. Unless you can show that there was an intent for you to have the money repaid (basically - a written loan agreement), no court will accept your claim.  This is one of the situations you can see frequently on ""Judge Judy"" and such, and the decision is always the same: unless there's a written (or you convince the judge about a verbal) agreement that it is a loan - it is a gift."


That is because they don't pay enough. Sure you can get good money in a union from a large urban center, but that is only a fraction of the trade jobs and they never have problems finding workers for decent unions. What they want is someone with experience that will work for an apprentice pay but work at a master's pace. Then the larger unionized companies just use the 'shortage' to hire foreign workers at a fraction of the wage exasperating the problem.


Is there a way he can spin his knowledge into a consulting capacity?  If he can't find a job he can always create one.  Market himself as an onsite mentor/trainer perhaps.  Or make YouTube videos and market himself in that way.  Run the seminar circuit.  Just high and brainstorming here...


Private industry is not inherently more efficient; it's all about incentives.  Competition creates efficiency.   Bureaucracy reduces efficiency.  A large poorly run company without real competition has no incentive to be efficient.  Give a large company a 30 year exclusive contract with no strings attached and they will almost certainly perform worse than the government.  Write the contract such that it has to renewed every 2 years and their pay is based on performance, and maybe it will be more efficient.  Of course corrupt politicians don't write contracts like that.


"Step 2 is wrong. Leverage is NOT necessary. It increases possible gain, but increases risk of loss by essentially the same amount. Those two numbers are pretty tightly linked by market forces. See many, many other answers here showing that one can earn ""market rate"" -- 8% or so -- with far less risk and effort, if one is patient, and some evidence that one can do better with more effort and not too much more risk. And yes, investing for a longer time horizon is also safer."


I will not attach my name to either. Romney isnt great. Obama is just as bad just on different things. Regardless of who you might think the lesser evil is, I personally refuse to vote for evil at all.   Most people probably agree with me considering voter turnout is less than 50% in this country.


The Fed basically took a short term view on the economy, and create inter-generational warfare by inflating asset prices.  The old folks got rich, and only the most successful millennials can afford a house.  Just wait until prices crash.  The end of the story hasn't been written yet.


When I play Railroad Tycoon III, I often send my company deep into debt to get cash on hand to buy back shares, effectively increasing my ownership of the company as an absolute percentage. Then I issue massive dividends until my company goes bankrupt, and start a new company. It's a way to shuttle money borrowed against a company's assets into my personal bank account at no risk to me. In the MSFT case, maybe they think there will be inflation and this is a hedge against holding so many dollars in cash already. If they can borrow a couple billion in 2010 dollars and pay it back in 2015 dollars, they're probably going to end up ahead if all they do is buy back shares. Paying dividends with the money seems stupid vs. buying back shares - they're just driving up income taxes for investors.


It's not a matter of claiming that no one deserves their success. It's a push back against the claim that luck doesn't play a determinative (but by itself insufficient) role in that success. edit: and how that perception shapes socio-cultural attitudes towards the less lucky.


"No!   The ""mostly false"", as clearly stated, by Politifact, is because, despite the claim being true, and even with additional 22 Billion Dollars, ""*it’s a bit of a stretch for him to take credit for any changes in debt levels*"".   Yes, you read it! ""it's a BIT of a stretch"", just a bit, because, oh yes, Trump did not enact any fiscal legislation (he did!) and deficits only get cut if you do ""fiscal legislations"" (they don't)."


"Here is what we do.  We use YNAB to do our budgeting and track our expenses.  Anything that gets paid electronically is tracked to the penny.  It really needs to be, because you want your transaction records to match your bank's transaction records. However, for cash spending, we only count the paper money, not the coins.  Here is how it works: If I want a Coke out of a vending machine for 75 cents, and I put a dollar bill in and get a quarter back as change, I record that as a $1.00 expense. If, instead, I put 3 quarters in to get the Coke, I don't record that expense at all.  Spending coins is ""free money.""  We do this mainly because it is just easier to keep track of.  I can quickly count the cash in my wallet and verify that it matches the amount that YNAB thinks I have in my wallet, and I don't need to worry about the coins.  Coins that are in my car to pay for parking meters or coins in the dish on my dresser don't need to be counted. This works for us mainly because we don't do a whole lot of cash spending, so the amount we are off just doesn't add up to a significant portion of our spending.  And, again, bank balances are exact to the penny."


As others have said, it depends on the brokerage firm.  My broker is Scottrade. With Scottrade the commission is assessed and applied the moment the order is filled. If I buy 100 shares of XYZ at $10 a share then Scottrade will immediately deduct $1007.02 out of my account. They add the commission and fees to the buy transaction. On a sale transaction they subtract the commission and fees from the resulting money. So if I sell 100 shares of XYZ at $11 a share I will get 1,092.98 put into my account, which I can use three business days later.


Honestly? Literally anything else. The same way budgets have been done since the dawn of time. If you have a mandatory expense (livable wage because we're prioritizing human life over discretionary spending because ethics) you trim the fat from other areas to make it work.


Visa and Mastercard are not consumer-oriented companies. They do not consider individual consumers as their direct clients, and do not sell directly to them. Instead, their clients are financial institutions who participate in their networks (which is what they're selling). The institutions target the individual consumers (merchants and credit card holders). American Express, for example, has a different business model. AX doesn't only sell network services to financial institutions, but also services to individual consumers. You can get a AX credit card/merchant account directly with AX, or through their client bank.


>We got an expert in cyber security!  Quick someone tell Target their customer's credit card info isn't accessible.  >Because they put them everywhere without your knowledge and profile you based on it.  Oh look FUD.  >Because Amazon has some of the best security in the world  http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2017/04/10/amazon-coms-third-party-sellers-hit-by-hackers.html  https://www.hackread.com/amazon-suffers-security-breach/


The focus of this article isn't on tax revenue. The author is discussing income disparity.   The laffer curve doesn't tell the whole story. You are correct, a higher tax rate does not imply higher tax revenue, and a lower tax rate does not imply less revenue. Changing tax rates isn't going to significantly affect tax revenue. However, there are a broad range of other effects when changing tax rates. In evaluating adjustments to tax rates, our focus needs to be on these secondary effects.   We are taxed on *income* not *revenue*.  When I sell you a $10 widget that I paid a worker $2 to produce from $5 of materials, I pay taxes on the $3 net income, not the $10 revenue I received from you.    The main way businesses avoid high marginal tax rates is by increasing deductible expenses, such that their net income after these expenses keeps them below their desired tax bracket.  It is far better to spend that money on something that can benefit the business than simply give it to the government. Any businessman would rather keep his earnings if possible. If that is not possible, he'd prefer to spend them on something that can help him, rather than squandering it on junk or giving it away to the government.   For most businesses, the largest deductible expense is payroll. Any decent employer would prefer to pay out a Christmas bonus instead of giving that same amount to Uncle Sam. Any businessman would prefer to pay for additional advertising, or a charitable donation to a worthy cause, rather than paying the IRS.   Run up the top-tier tax rate and suddenly, businessmen feel a compelling need to lower their prices and pay their workers more. Run up the tax rate, and income disparity shrinks.  Run up the tax rate, and you put more money in the hands of consumers.


Can you elaborate more on what you are referring too? No where near an economic expert, but by 'demand side subsidization' are you referring to the fed gov giving people money for their health care costs? Excluding the erroneous spending, such as a patient only willing to take a brand name pharmaceutical drug instead of a generic, that health care will be needed regardless, correct? So if taxes fit the bill, why would costs for the care received go up? Is it just because the provider knows they'll get the $$ almost no matter what if it's gov $$? Or something else besides, to put it bluntly, greed that would directly increase those costs?  Serious question btw?


Yes, this will reduce your total interest. But not by much. Scenario 1: You run up bills for the month totaling $750, and then at the end of the month you get paid and pay $750. Scenario 2: You pay $750 at the beginning of the month. Then over the course of the month you run up bills totaling $750. Assume you have carryover debt of over $750 so you don't have a credit balance at any point. Either way, the net change in your balance for the month is zero. Assuming you spent about the same amount of money each day, the difference in your average daily balance will be $750. If you're paying 18% -- I think that's a fairly typical credit card rate -- that's 1 1/2% per month, so the difference in interest will be about $10. Note this is the most extreme case, the difference between paying on the first day of the billing period and paying on the last day of the billing period, and assuming that you pay all your bills by credit card. So in real life the difference in the interest will probably be less. You're talking about a technique to save maybe five bucks a month. I suppose every dollar helps. But the real solution is to get your credit cards paid off so you're not paying ANY interest.


The reason there should really be no bad feelings for the bond-holders is that they knew full well that these were defaulted bonds, but bought them because they saw a loophole they could use to try and force Argentina's hand.   It was basically a setup to enable them to try and blackmail the government into 'undefaylting' on those bonds.   I recon what will happen in the end is that the other creditors, the ones who had accepted the haircut, will end up buying those bonds at close to full price, just to ensure they are paid at least part of their money back. Because around 95% of bond holders agreed to the haircut, the diluted costs would be small.   What is infuriating is the precedent these guys are setting. In the end, all bond will have class-action clauses in which a majority agreeing to a restructure will apply to all bond holders.


"Insurance is bought for peace of mind and to divert disaster.   Diverting disaster is a good/great thing.  If your house burned down, if someone hit your car, or some other devastating event (think medical) happened that required a more allocation than you could afford the series of issues may snowball and cause you to lose a far greater amount of money than the initial incident.  This could be in the form of losing work time, losing a job, having to buy transportation quickly paying a premium, having to incur high rate debt and so on.   For the middle income and lower classes medical, house, and medical insurance certainly falls into these categories.  Also why a lot of states have buyout options on auto insurance (some will let you drive without insurance by proving bonding up to 250K.   Now the other insurance as I have alluded to is for peace of mind mainly.  This is your laptop insurance, vacation insurance and so on.  The premise of these insurances is that no matter what happens you can get back to ""even"" by paying just a little extra.   However what other answers have failed to clarify is the idea of insurance.  It is an agreement that you will pay a company money right now.  And then if a certain set of events happen, you follow their guidelines, they are still in business, they still have the same protocols, and so on that you will get some benefit when something ""disadvantageous"" happens to you.  We buy insurance because we think we can snap our fingers and life will be back to normal.  For bigger things like medical, home, and auto there are more regulations but I could get 1000 comments on people getting screwed over by their insurance companies.  For smaller things, almost all insurance is outsourced to a 3rd party not affiliated legally with a business.  Therefore if the costs are too high they can simply go under, and if the costs are low they continue helping the consumer (that doesn't need help).   So we buy insurance divert catastrophe or because we have fallen for the insurance sales pitch.  And an easy way to get around the sales pitch - as the person selling you the insurance if you can have their name and info and they will be personally liable if the insurance company fails their end of the bargain."


"6%?  One wonders why a ""booming"" economy can't afford the rising costs of employment.  Typically being unable to fill a position means the wages are too low for the available pool of employees.  One raises wages until the roles are filled then raises prices accordingly.  If prices cannot be raised without consumption falling off, *then there are other issues.*"


">Make sense, those willing to pay a large price premium on a lap top would probably be willing to spend more on a hotel.  And just as likely they would not be WANTING to reserve a room at the Motel 6, much less Ma & Pa Kettle's ""rooms 4 rent"" fleabag motel.  If you're a ""brand name & image"" consumer when it comes to consumers (the days when the Mac OS/GUI was pragmatically/functionally ""better"" than other products is long past), then you are probably into buying brand names and ""image"" in other products/services as well."


"No kidding. I'm not a fan of ""sales guys"" as a whole, but being paid commission alone is just insulting. As far as I'm concerned, it's pretty much just asking to have all your customers poached by a competitor that doesn't jerk people around when said sales guy ultimately leaves for a better position in 6 months -- because you'd have to be kind of a moron to do that job without some other benefit to make it worthwhile."


"The psychology of investing is fascinating. I buy a stock that's out of favor at $10, and sell half at a 400% profit, $50/share. Then another half at $100, figuring you don't ever lose taking a profit. Now my Apple shares are over $500, but I only have 100. The $10 purchase was risky as Apple pre-iPod wasn't a company that was guaranteed to survive.  The only intelligent advice I can offer is to look at your holdings frequently, and ask, ""would I buy this stock today given its fundamentals and price?"" If you wouldn't buy it, you shouldn't hold it. (This is in contrast to the company ratings you see of buy, hold, sell. If I should hold it, but you shouldn't buy it to hold, that makes no sense to me.) Disclaimer - I am old and have decided stock picking is tough. Most of our retirement accounts are indexed to the S&P. Maybe 10% is in individual stocks. The amount my stocks lag the index is less than my friends spend going to Vegas, so I'm happy with the results. Most people would be far better off indexing than picking stocks."


The bank certainly doesn't have to take it for a deposit; that's not a debt.  There have been several cases where disgruntled debtors have attempted deliberately annoying ways to pay their debts; the apocryphal example being pennies.  Courts are not likely to support such efforts since it's obvious that a) the action is malicious and (relevant to you) b) it's really on you to maintain your money in a wieldy form.  If you allow your money to become unwieldy, nobody owes you anything.   I wonder about the meta-meaning of that.  And whether, in that light it really makes sense to worry about 5% or rolling.  As far as getting rid of it, when I bought out a girlfriend's piggybank at par, I just made sure to walk out of the house with $5 in change in my pocket and unload $2-3 at every retailer, none ever objected and some appreciated.  Quarters were traded to coin laundry users. When going on transit I brought a bunch, the machines never grumbled.  I burned through the cache much faster than expected.


Subsidies are anti-competitice practices. Its the government picking winners and losers over the market's preference.  Just like onerous regulations. Smaller companies aren't able to hire the overhead required to keep up with them, and are therefore fined out of existences due to this countries staggering regulatory burden.


I took it in my Junior year and scored 99th percentile. Two years later, I've had dozens of resume requests without any results. Personally, now that you can take it multiple times and from anywhere, I think it has lost any value it may have provided.


Income Tax would only be levied on the 10% commission that you earn and not on the total amount kept in the Escrow Account.


This author is conflating a sole proprietorship and a one-man shop.  Sole proprietorship is a tax designation as to who *owns* the business; an individual rather than a shareholder(s) or partner.  I operate as a sole proprietor, and have always had between four and six employees.


">During the dot-com boom, tons of people with liberal arts degrees and no experience wound up as ""software engineers"". Not all of them sucked, but many did, and the dot-com crash sorted that out. As an engineer, I saw this first hand, and it wasn't a bad thing -- I had a lot of co-workers in 2000 who weren't pulling their weight. This is going to sound heartless, and maybe it is, but if someone has been unemployed 3 years, maybe it is time for a career change.  This was what I'm arguing about not the economics of the situation. You make the argument that it is not a bad thing because their skills were lacking. But that isn't the case with the receptionists and this is not just one branch that is suffering. I think its a terrible thing that has little to do with the skills of people and the ""right"" career path.  When there are no jobs or very little jobs being unemployed for 3 years is hell and considering a career change it not as simple as you make it sound."


If the foreclosed property is sold for more than is owed, then the borrower is entitled to the excess. If sold for what is owed or less, then the borrower gets nothing. Any money that you are entitled to would be determined by your contract with the mortgaged owner, but the bank is the first lien-holder, they get made whole first, and if there is excess then you may see some of your money back depending on your contract with the mortgaged owner. Since the bank owns the property until the mortgage is paid off, you would have had to work with the bank in order to have legal ownership of a portion of the house and approving partial sale of a house is not something most banks would likely care to do. A contract you worked up with the borrower doesn't give you legal claim to the house (in foreclosure, at least), due to the bank's lien. You'd have to contact a lawyer for firm answers, but it sounds bleak.


"for sure but with those excuses you would find a forced underclass in certain bigoted areas of the us, and their excuse would always be ""liked minded""... ""i just dont get along with blacks"" SO your comfort is disrupted so that we dont have people majorly oppressed so you can feel comfortable. It sucks that is the way it is, but it is."


"Aside from the calculations of ""how much you save through reducing interest"", you have two different types of loan here.  The house that is mortgaged is not a wasting asset. You can reasonably expect that in 2045 it will have retained its worth measured in ""houses"", against the other houses in the same neighbourhood. In money terms, it is likely to be worth more than its current value, if only because of inflation. To judge the real cost or benefit of the mortgage, you need to consider those factors. You didn't say whether the 3.625% is a fixed or variable rate, but you also need to consider how the rate might compare with inflation in the long term. If you have a fixed rate mortgage and inflation rises above 3.625% in future, you are making money from the loan in the long term, not losing what you pay in interest. On the other hand, your car is a wasting asset, and your car loans are just a way of ""paying by installments"" over the life of the car. If there are no penalties for early repayment, the obvious choice there is to pay off the highest interest rates first. You might also want to consider what happens if you need to ""get the $11,000 back"" to use for some other (unplanned, or emergency) purpose. If you pay it into your mortgage now, there is no easy way to get it back before 2045. On the other hand, if you pay down your car loans, most likely you now have a car that is worth more than the loans on it. In an emergency, you could sell the car and recover at least some of the $11,000. Of course you should keep enough cash available to cover ""normal emergencies"" without having to take this sort of action, but ""abnormal emergencies"" do sometimes happen!"


That's an excuse. During the 50s there were plenty of women in the workforce and nothing changed. If that's the case the income should have halved but in reality it's been reduced to about 30%. More to the point companies today couldn't afford to pay people the amount they paid in the past.  EDIT: Why am I being downvoted. Every I have said is 100% factual.


"So after a great deal of clarification, it appears that your question is how to adjust your withholding such that you'll have neither a refund, or a balance due, when you do your 2016 taxes next year.  First, a little terminology. The more you have withheld, the more money will be taken out of your check to cover your estimated tax liability. Confusingly, the more allowances you select on your W-4, the less money you will have withheld (more allowances means more dependents/deductions/other reasons why you will owe less tax). When you go to file your 2015 tax return next year, you'll figure out exactly how much you owe. If you had too little tax withheld, you'll have to pay the difference. If you had too much tax withheld, you'll get a refund back.  Given your situation, simply following the instructions on the W-4 should work pretty well. If you want to be more precise, you can use the IRS Withholding Calculator to figure the number of allowances and submit a new W-4 to your employer.  It's a little hard to tell whether ""paying this much/year in taxes seem steep?"" because you've lumped all the taxes together in one big bucket. Does the $543.61 in taxes per paycheck include Social Security (OASDI) and Medicare taxes? Whatever you do, it's not going to be an exact science. Come tax time, you'll figure out exactly what you owe and either pay the balance or get a refund back. As long as you're relatively close, that's fine. You can always adjust your withholding again next year after you've done your taxes."


I was meaning to say that lower cost will equal lower priced products, at least on products that are already low margin and high volume (like most tech products).  I agree that nice stuff/crap stuff can come from anywhere; we're in a very global economy.


>then employers will likely defer to candidates that they deem to be more mature.  Recruiters go for fresh idealistic faces at college campuses, not jaded 30 somethings who probably won't *attempt* to give 110% their first 2-5 years on the job. That's how my industry (Accounting) works at least. Public Accounting likes to get them while they're young and idealistic, burn them out working ridiculous unpaid overtime, then discard the 98% who aren't deemed partner material.   A 30-something who has worked a bunch of dead-end jobs for low pay isn't going to be as enthused to work a job where you get used and thrown away as they've been there and done that and know it doesn't really get you anywhere.


I didn't say it wasn't a joke, just correcting your comment with some first hand knowledge.     I don't think bitcoin is a useful currency either. I used it for awhile, who is going to wait 10 minutes to an hour to send a payment? Not me, debit is faster. I don't even own any more, sold all of it for cash. The irony is the network wasn't scaled with demand, and now fees are out of control... its not useful as currency and you're right to think so.     That being said, I do think the underlying technology has some potential, specifically smart contracts which are on Ethereum. Again, I don't think it should be a currency, but the being able to run decentralized and trustless programs is pretty damn cool IMO.


Our extremely lovable Apricot teacup maltipoo puppies for sale can make for a wonderful pet and companion. They are fast learners with house training and are basically called as the poodle mix puppies. Considered as one of the smartest dogs, they are non shedding hypoallergenic puppies.


SECTION | CONTENT :--|:-- Title | Humans Need Not Apply Description | Discuss this video: http://www.reddit.com/r/CGPGrey/comments/2dfh5v/humans_need_not_apply/ http://www.CGPGrey.com/ https://twitter.com/cgpgrey  ## Robots, Etc:  Terex Port automation: http://www.terex.com/port-solutions/en/products/new-equipment/automated-guided-vehicles/lift-agv/index.htm  Command | Cat MieStar System.: http://www.catminestarsystem.com/capability_sets/command  Bosch Automotive Technology: http://www.bosch-automotivetechnology.com/en/de/specials/specials_for_more_driving_safety/... Length | 0:15:01           ****   ^(I am a bot, this is an auto-generated reply | )^[Info](https://www.reddit.com/u/video_descriptionbot) ^| ^[Feedback](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=video_descriptionbot&subject=Feedback) ^| ^(Reply STOP to opt out permanently)


I'd recommend Introductory Econometrics by Wooldridge. It was a staple in my undergraduate years, although I'm not sure how much it differs from the one by Brooks.   Also, I would suggest looking into Mathematical Statistics. It helps with understanding some of the more complicated models used in forecasting (understanding maximum likelihood estimation, etc, was key for me).   Here's a free textbook that I found helpful as well: http://www.ssc.upenn.edu/~fdiebold/Teaching221/Forecasting.pdf


I agree with Rich Seller.  Avoiding a trip to the store is a benefit.  Not only do you save the time and hassle, but there's real money saved if a car trip is avoided: I maintain a spreadsheet for all of my car expenses – depreciation, maintenance, insurance, license & registration, gas, etc. Combined with starting & ending odometer readings for the year, I can see exactly what it costs me to drive one kilometre.  Granted, some costs are fixed simply by virtue of having the car, but gasoline is a variable cost avoided when a trip is avoided.


I calculated state and local income tax, property tax and train fares and decided it costs about a $650 less to live in New Jersey. So, I guess I'm staying in New Jersey.


My observations is that this seems like hardly enough to kill   inflation. Is he right? Or are there better ways to invest? The tax deferral part of the equation isn't what dominates regarding whether your 401k beats 30 years of inflation; it is the return on investment.  If your 401k account tanks due to a prolonged market crash just as you retire, then you might have been better off stashing the money in the bank.  Remember, 401k money at now + 30 years is not a guaranteed return (though many speak as though it were).  There is also the question as to whether fees will eat up some of your return and whether the funds your 401k invests in are good ones. I'm uneasy with the autopilot nature of the typical 401k non-strategy; it's too much the standard thing to do in the U.S., it's too unconscious, and strikes me as Ponzi-like.  It has been a winning strategy for some already, sure, and maybe it will work for the next 30-100 years or more.  I just don't know.  There are also changes in policy or other unknowns that 30 years will bring, so it takes faith I don't have to lock away a large chunk of my savings in something I can't touch without hassle and penalty until then. For that reason, I have contributed very little to my 403b previously, contribute nothing now (though employer does, automatically.  I have no match.) and have built up a sizable cash savings, some of which may be used to start a business or buy a house with a small or no mortgage (thereby guaranteeing at least not paying mortgage interest).  I am open to changing my mind about all this, but am glad I've been able to at least save a chunk to give me some options that I can exercise in the next 5-10 years if I want, instead of having to wait 25 or more.


Your business may need some sprucing up. Did you know that we can take care of commercial paint jobs in Vancouver as well? We have years of experience and we will help you to get your business looking as great as it did the first day that you moved into your building.  http://barwickpainting.com/commercial/


If you've got had a business for any period of time, you may have taken into consideration incorporating your corporation. Thoughts of incorporation may also be accompanied by using thoughts of time, expense, and tremendous quantities of paperwork. You may have notion which you have been required to apply an legal professional or take days or even weeks, of your personal time to sift via the paperwork and crimson tape simply to comprise your business Online incorporation. After thinking about what appears, at the floor, to be an awesome assignment, you could have set the choice aside for some other day.


"The success rate is terrible.  At the same time, what are the success rate for any business endeavor?  Isn't it something like 80% of startups fail in the first 5 years?  That's not far off for the success of traders.  Just like all the success cliches say, it comes down to how bad you want it.  What will you sacrifice to be a successful trader?  How much will you work to be a successful trader?  Will you accept the pain and failure it takes to be a trader?  Who cares if ""soandso"" can do it?  If you want it, you should be saying, ""I will do it because I say so"".  Only you know if you're willing to take the risk.  At the same time, you're a college student, what's the worst that will happen if it doesn't work out?  Check out /r/getmotivated..."


It seems like all the companies on their scale treat their employees like garbage. However, I try not to shop at those places. The invisible hand of the market impacts Wal-Mart, but it has little real impact. Look at this thread, some people praise Wal-Mart because of this, but they've been treating them badly for decades.


What I'm saying is the NATO thing is also aggressive, and the coup was aggressive.  Also I think ukraine is just another battle in a very long war between Russian and American oil interests. That's why I don't want to take a side, except keep the American military out of it.


"I worked in the service industry for over 10 years and this came up every now and again.  Mostly in hypothetical situations.   I'm not a tax expert, but my general understanding is that it is viewed as income by the IRS if you performed a service of any kind in exchange for the money.  In other words, if you waited on the table, and they left you a gift for doing so, it is taxable.   You'll probably also find that if you pool tips with other employees or have to tip out the bartenders, cooks or dishwashers, they'll generally agree with the IRS that you clearly received a tip and want their fair share. While the concept of ""gifting"" money to others in a situation like this is intriguing, especially in the service industry, it really doesn't meet the definition of a gift in the eyes of the IRS. For it to truly be a gift, the person would have had to intend to gift you the money even if they hadn't come into your restaurant at all that night.  That clearly is not the case here."


Just to stand up for Microsoft a little bit, their Zune players were fantastic.  I still use mine in my car.  More durable than iPods, better looking design (not counting the 1st gen), and their music service was ahead of it's time.  Unfortunately the device was a little late to the game.  Zune launched when phones were taking over the music player space, and people didn't want dedicated devices for that.   For their OS, the enterprise side is really what has been causing headaches for home users for a long time.  The fact that many applications function on Windows 8.1 that were originally written for Windows 95/98/2000 says a lot about how committed Microsoft is to the enterprise world (the enterprise world has a hard time letting go of old software).    Apple doesn't have this problem, they frequently release updates that render older applications inoperable and leave it up to the people who wrote the software to fix it.  It makes their OS significantly less complicated, which reduces the issues that common users see.    From an IT Professional standpoint, Apple has a ton of their own problems, especially with the enterprise, but most home users don't see that.    I think your accusation of MS being complete dogshit is pretty harsh.  While Windows has issues, especially at the hands of inexperienced users, it is very impressive software.   Just for disclosure, I use a Macbook at work for network and datacenter related IT work, have a Windows 7 VM on that, and my home computer runs Windows 7 as well.   Probably going to pass on 8, due to commonly known gripes.


>Mr. Bishop says he puts out an average of 35 posts a week, and estimates that he would need to spend a minimum of $9,100 a year if he opted to pay fees to promote each one of them to his more than 1,500 followers.  Who the hell wants to hear about a company 35 times a week?


Minimum wage is terribly low.  However, someone making $1700 a month (income from first job), does not have to be homeless in Kansas.   You are not living in the ritzy neighborhood, and would need to budget.   But this is a long way from homelessness.   The average 2bed Kansas City is [under $500 per month](https://www.kcpremierapts.com/how-we-work/nitty-gritty/kansas-city-apartment-pricing.html) in some neighborhoods.   That leaves enough money for food.      Not a desirable lifestyle, but a long way above homelessness unless there are mental health and addiction issues.


I think there are similar downsides to creative careers though.  When everything you do is subjective, it can be just as bad.  Creative decisions are based on intangible thought processes, so instead of having endless powerpoints explaining a decision with data, you have endless powerpoints that have no practical, logical drive at all.  Source: worked for a major media company.


First, almost no truck company will agree to this. They'll just laugh. Half of truck company's have owner operators, who will just pick up and move elsewhere. They can even start working for Amazon directly because (number two) Amazon is starting it own transportation, slowly but surely. This won't happen, and Walmart is stupid for trying.


Your question seems like you don't understand what a Roth IRA is. A Roth IRA isn't an investment, per se. It is just a type of account that receives special tax treatment.  Just like a checking and savings account are different at a bank, a ROTH IRA account is just flagged as such by a brokerage. It isn't an investment type, and there aren't really different ROTH IRA accounts.  You can invest in just about anything inside that account so that is what you need to evaluate. One Roth IRA account is as good as any other.As to what to invest your money in inside a ROTH, that is a huge question and off-topic per the rules against specific investing advice.


"They also ignored bankruptcy law and gave a large part of the New GM to the unions when it should belong to the bondholders. Or if the bondholders are getting wiped out, it should belong 100% to the US Government. Theoretically you need the legislative or judiciary branches to back such actions, but in practice it doesn't always happen. Or when Obama tanked the Las Vegas tourism industry when he took at shot at the ""fat cats"" and the next day all the executives cancelled their corporate events in Vegas because they wanted to get out of the line of fire."


"Lol you finance guys are so hilarious. You don't understand cryptocurrencies or ""decentralized ledger technology"" at all. The ONLY way it works is if people have some **incentive** to actually secure and verify the Merkle Chain.... If I'm not getting something out of it **Why the fuck would I run a program to do that? Just to watch the computer get hot?** The block reward (aka the amount of bitcoins) I get are the underpinning incentive to do so! Get it? No bitcoins = nobody wants to secure your ledger! Therefore these ""permissioned ledgers"" are not going to be as secure or as trustworthy. There will likely be some cool shit that comes out of permissioned ledgers and intrablockchain stuff, but you are completely missing the ball if you think the actual bitcoins are dumb...... I know its complicated, it takes a while to **actually** understand, but it's partially engineering and you actually have to understand it all before you get to call it stupidity. The ""non-speculative value"" or utility of bitcoin as a currency seems to work just fine for online drug markets and has done quite a bit of business. It's got fantastic utility for buying retail shit online without having to give up personal information as well. It's got great utility for remittance. It's got divisibility. It is indeed a bonafide currency....    **TLDR; So how do you think that the recordkeeping gets done? Do you think people will do this for free? What function do you think the ""cryptocurrencies"" themselves currently serve? How do you think permissioned ledgers will be secure (i.e. tamperproof) if not done by public record? Don't you think that if they simply wanted to prevent tamperproof records they only need to use an airgapped computer and pen and paper?***"


In other words, Wal-Mart offered them a job, when no one else would. But somehow that makes Wal-Mart the villain. I guess they should learn their lesson, raise wages, and hire workers with higher skill sets. That'll make you feel warm and fuzzy, and it'll give someone else a higher wage job. Of course, the low skill workers will just not be hired to any job, but I guess it's better for them to be on straight welfare than working with some subsidies. Right?


SEC forms are required when declaring insider activity.  An insider is defined by the SEC to be a person or entity which (i) beneficially owns 10% or more of the outstanding shares of the company, (ii) is an officer or director of the company, or (iii), in the case of insider trading, does so based on knowledge which is not otherwise publically available at the time.  At any rate, the person or entity trading the stock is required to file certain forms. Form 3 is filed when a person first transitions into the status of an insider (by becoming an officer, director, or beneficial owner of a certain percentage of stock). Form 4 is filed when an existing insider trades stock under the company's symbol. Form 5 is filed when certain insider trades of small value are reported later than usual. *More information can be found at the SEC's website. Another possibility is that a large number of options or derivatives were exercised by an officer, director, or lending institution.  In the cases of officers or directors, this would need to be declared with an SEC form 4.  For an institution exercising warrants obtained as a result of a lending agreement, either form 3 or 4 would need to be filed. In addition to the above possibilities, username passing through pointed out a very likely scenario in his answer, as well.


The facet of this that I find most intriguing is that our media companies are much smaller than most corporations.   According to the lawsuit, BPI claims that they were caused $5.7 **billion** dollars in damages. It claims that they were seeing $650 million in annual revenue before the story.  The numbers are so huge that anyone causing any disruption to such a large corporate machine is something that cannot be repaid. Imagine if you caused that company a 1% decline in sales. That's $6.5 million. Can you pay restitution on that?  Our corporations are too large, and their power is too great. We need to break shit like this up.


Well, arbitrage is a simple mean reversion strategy which states that any two similar commodity with some price difference (usually not much)  will converge. So either you can bet on difference in prices in different exchanges or also you can bet on difference in futures value.  For example if current price of stock is 14$ and if futures price is 10$.  Then you can buy one futures contract and short one stock at the market price. This would lock in a profit of 4$ per share.


You haven't indicated where the funds are held. They should ideally be held in NRO account. If you haven't, have this done ASAP. Once the funds are in NRO account, you can repatriate this outside of India subject to a limit of 1 million USD. A CA certificate is required. Please contact your Indian Bank and they should be able to guide you. There are no tax implications of this in US as much as I know, someone else may post the US tax aspect.


"There are situations where you can be forced to cover a position, particular when ""Reg SHO"" (""regulation sho"") is activated. Reg SHO is intended to make naked short sellers cover their position, it is to prevent abusive failure to delivers, where someone goes short without borrowing someone else's shares. Naked shorting isn't a violation of federal securities laws but it becomes an accounting problem when multiple people have claims to the same underlying assets. (I've seen companies that had 120% of their shares sold short, too funny, FWIW the market was correct as the company was worth nothing.) You can be naked short without knowing it. So there can be times when you will be forced to cover. Other people being forced to cover can result in a short squeeze. A risk. The other downside is that you have to pay interest on your borrowings. You also have to pay the dividends to the owner of the shares, if applicable. In shorter time frames these are negligible, but in longer time frames, such as closer to a year or longer, these really add up. Let alone the costs of the market going in the opposite direction, and the commissions."


And it will fail miserably. Anyone who ever done any groceries knows shoppers dont behave in the way like that in the videos. Its way more chaotic especially around produces section. But sure, it looks nice for a concept video filled with people whom you rarely see at grocery stores.


"A couple of thoughts and experiences (Germany/Italy): First of all, I recommend talking to the Belgian bank (and possibly to a Dutch bank of your choice). I have similar conditions for my German bank accounts. But even though they talk about it as salary account (""Gehaltskonto"") all they really ask for is a monthly inflow of more than xxxx € - which can be satisfied with an automatic direct transfer (I have some money automatically circulating for this reason which ""earns"" about 4% p.a. by saving fees). In that case it may be a feasible way to have a Belgian and a Dutch bank account and set up some money circulation.  Experiences working in Italy (some years ago, SEPA payments were kind of new and the debits weren't implemented then):  My guess with your service providers is that they are allowed to offer you contracts that are bound to rather arbitrary payment conditions. After all, you probably can also get a prepaid phone or a contract with a bill that you can then pay by wire transfer - however, AFAIK they are allowed to offer discounts/ask fees for different payment methods. Just like there is no law that forces the store around your corner to accept credit cards or even large EUR denominations as long as they tell you so beforehand.   AFAIK, there is EU regulation saying your bank isn't allowed to charge you more for wire transger to foreign country within the SEPA zone than a national wire transfer."


"I'm not. it's going to backfire and here's why.   if you raise wages they will lose their section 8 housing and Medicaid.   if they're not on either it will still affect people in the area because if you raise wages you raise the price of goods and services, taxes go up, cost of living goes up, and they're back at square one.   this whole idea of ""I deserve more because I live here"" needs to get tossed. Nothing in life is handed to you so why the fuck would a decent job fall out of the sky?   get with it...."


It's true not everyone loves every style.  COuld have said that for any style lol. Yes, I love authentic Neopolitan pizza as well, but it has a few drawbacks. 1) Not good for deliver, must be eaten instantly. 2) many not familiar with it. 3) new chains are trying to replicate it (pieology) and do it horribly, thus watering it down.


"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/opinion/housing-regulations-us-economy.html) reduced by 89%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Since the 1970s, a property-rights revolution - what critics call Nimbyism, from &quot;Not in my back yard&quot; - has significantly reduced the development of new housing stock, especially in cities where the economy is strongest.  > The cost for the country of too-stringent housing regulations in high-wage, high-productivity cities in forgone gross domestic product is $1.4 trillion.  > Because of the prohibitive cost of housing caused by these regulations, innovative companies in Silicon Valley and Boston do not grow as much as they could, and new businesses do not get created.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6yl8nt/how_local_housing_regulations_smother_the_us/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~205629 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*: **housing**^#1 **cost**^#2 **New**^#3 **regulations**^#4 **project**^#5"


I have had this username when I was much more immature than I am now. I am hoping it serves as a reminder that we can ascribe to higher thoughts despite our beginnings, that you can never really start over, but instead must overcome


Your analogy is a poor representation of my point. My point being that finding success in life is hard, no matter what you want to do. An idea that is consistent in all ideologies.   Well, it is solely controlled by s/d, kinda. The things you listed all affect s/d which controls the market. Of course there will always be waves of new graduates to fill min wage jobs, because most everyone can do them, that was kinda my point. It's not so much the company controlling demand as it is the company adjusting to it, if there are an abundance of min wage jobs relative to the amount of workers, they wouldn't be min wage jobs. This premise of s/d is in no way unique to capitalism. And even the fluctuations in compensation to mirror your contribution and skills isn't unique to capitalism.  Sure capitalism favors those with more capital, which is the point. In order to acquire capital you need to do productive things, which (idealy) are productive to some degree to society as a whole. So, acquire more capital- SEE IT'S SO EASY!


The liabilities are the same regardless of the route, besides tax evasion schemes such as handing the money to her as cash. Taxes will run up to half of the amount. The best routes are: Western union, moneygram, and similar services- about 2k You are allowed to gift 14k tax free. You can increase this amount by sending to multiple trusted people. See here. https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/tax-tips/Tax-Planning-and-Checklists/The-Gift-Tax-Made-Simple/INF12127.html The gifter pay taxes, the giftee does not- unless the gifter fails to pay.  Let me know which route you prefer. If you do a bank transfer then you will have to work that out with your bank. If you chose to do a wire transfer, yes. Yes, if it's no more than about $2000.


It all boils down to this: If you don't have a record of what you own before a fire happens, you can't get it after the fire happens. The more records you have, the better.  Proof of sales price.  Proof of authenticity.  Condition.  Quantity.  If you have to prove value, you'll be glad you have the records. It makes sense also to see what kind of things are not covered.  Is art covered?  How about coins or jewelry?  A stamp collection?  Antiques?  If replacing these kinds of things is important to you, then make sure you (a) have insurance for it, and (b) can demonstrate its value with your records (purchase receipt, appraisal, etc.)


"Following @Brick's advice, I am posting this as an answer so it ""stands apart from the question"", but all the credit goes to @TTT, whose instructions I followed. I was able to get this collection completely deleted/removed from the 2 bureaus that were reporting it, using only the online dispute process. Of course, your mileage may vary, but here's some more details, that may be helpful to others. Equifax: Success! 3 weeks after disputing the collection using the online dispute process, and uploading my (scanned) ""final account statement"" to show that I paid the apartment complex, I received an email confirmation that it is deleted. (I had to go to a webpage to get the actual result.) TransUnion: Success! Although I never heard back from TU, my CreditKarma account now shows that the collection is no longer on my TU report either. I am not sure if this is because Equifax deleted it and TU just followed suit, or if TU did their own investigation (ideas, comments? could help others). Their online dispute process bugged out and didn't accept my upload, so they would have had to contact the apartment complex, so I was supposed to receive something by mail. I still haven't, but it's definitely gone from my report. Experian: It didn't show up on this report, so I can't give any feedback. I suppose it's also worth noting that I did not ever have any contact with the Collections Agency. I did visit the apartment office, in person, in order to get a copy of my final statement. While there, I spoke with the (new) manager, who said she would try to reach up the chain of command to figure something out. I'm not sure how much difference, if any, this may have made, as the complex is now owned by an entirely different company. In fact, the new manager had no idea who the old management company was, much less which collections agency they used. Also worth noting: Removing the collection made my score rise from 623 to 701! I know because, after getting the collection removed from my report, I re-applied for the auto loan I had been denied 3 weeks prior, and they gave me my Equifax score both times."


E.g. I buy 1 stock unit for $100.00 and sell it later for $150.00 => income taxes arise. Correct. You pay tax on your gains, i.e.: the different between net proceeds and gross costs (proceeds sans fees, acquisition costs including fees). I buy 1 stock unit for $150.00 and sell it later for $100.00 => no income taxes here. Not correct. The loss is deductible from other capital gains, and if no other capital gains - from your income (up to $3000 a year, until exhausted). Also, there are two different tax rate sets for capital gains: short term (holding up to 1 year) and long term (more than that). Short term capital gains tax matches ordinary income brackets, whereas long term capital gains tax brackets are much lower.


Why not ask Willard Romney about this, he has 138 differant accounts in the Cayman's island, all with the post office box of 908. Not to mention his accounts in Swiss banks,banks in Ireland and a few more. The only problem with asking Willard Romney about this is, we will get a differant answer each time we ask.


EShred is a proud Australian owned and operated shredding company providing secure document destruction, security bins and paper shredding services. We have years of hands on experience in the industry, visit us now if you are looking for secure document shredding in Sydney.


Couch Dental Care in Idaho Falls makes oral health care easy and accessible for local residents. We specialize in all kind of cosmetic dentistry, sedation dentistry and dental implant procedures and have been serving expertise based on the specific needs of individuals. Schedule an appointment today.


The bit I don't quite understand is why you are thinking about staying in debt in the first place - you're basically thinking about shuffling around assets and liabilities in order to stay in debt? I think what I would do in your situation is to liquidate enough of the investments you have and pay off the mortgage. This doesn't change your net worth position less the fees etc that you might incur, but it'll save you the interest for the mortgage over the remaining term of your mortgage.


Are you working? Does your employer offer a 401(k) and if so, is there any match?  Saving should be taught to kids at the same time they are old enough to get an allowance. There are many numbers tossed around, but 10% is a start for any new saver. If a college graduate can start by saving even 15%, better still. If you find that the 10% is too much, just start with what you can spare, and work to build that up over time, perhaps by splitting any future raises, half going toward savings, half to spending.  Good luck. Edit  - my 12 yr old made good money this summer baby sitting. I'm opening a Roth IRA for her. A 10 yr head start on her retirement savings. Edit (Jan-2013) - she's 14 now, 3 deposits to the Roth total $6000, and she's planning to up the number this year. Her goal is to have $50K saved in her Roth by the time she graduates college.  Edit, by request (July-2017) 18, and off to college next month. Just under $24K, all invested in an S&P low cost index. We are planning to continue deposits of $4-$5K/yr, so the $50K is still a good goal.


There isn't going to be one right answer, but LessWrong has some posts on effective altruism you might find helpful. They also link to a TED talk


"If the Federal Reserve were to pay banks to hold money, they would need to get the money from somewhere to do so.  They would have three options: Go to Congress, and request and authorization of funds. As an quasi-independent entity, however, it would be both highly unorthodox for an institution to diminish its own authority by requesting funding, and politically difficult for the Congress to appropriate it. Transfer held-assets  After QE & QE2, the Fed is now the holder of several assets (mortgages and the like) that are already unorthodox for it to hold. It acquired these assets in the first place to soak up excess demand.  If these assets were transferred back to banks, it would have exactly the opposite effect - increasing supply and further suppressing the value of the assets they would be trying to shore up by lowering the interest rate. ""Print money""  The fed could raise the money supply by issuing new bonds. This is inherently inflationary, and while pretty much everyone agrees this isn't bad in the short run, there is already widespread fear that in the long run, QE by itself is going to unleash massive inflation once growth returns anyway.  To keep ""pushing on this string"" would only excerabate these fears, and quite likely turn it into a self-fufilling prophecy. In short, the Fed ""could"" pay banks to hold money, but the political and economic consequences of raising the needed funds to do so would all undermine the institution or the desired effect."


Actually, most of the forex traders do not prefer the practice of leveraging. In forex trading, a contract signed by a common trader is way more than any common man can afford to risk. It is not a compulsion for the traders to use leveraging yet most of the traders practice it. The other side of it is completely different. Trading companies or brokers specifically like it because you turn into a kind of cash cow when your account gets exhausted. As for trader, most of them don’t practice leveraging.


This long winded response could be down to this: non lawyers from New Hampshire get surprised by Florida lawsuit. Decided to fight it without a lawyer, gets surprised when lawyer knows more than them. Waits until it's too late and then looks for a lawyer who ends up conflicted out.   The advice we always give when someone has a legal problem: hire an attorney.   These people didn't follow the advice and got burned by their own ignorance.   This isn't about buying justice. This is about idiots thinking that they know it all.


Avoiding fees would not be the primary reason to buy bonds yourself. No, the reason to buy bonds yourself in a retirement account is that you can hold them to maturity. Bond funds can and do lose value if interest rates rise (and gain it if interest rates fall). Of course the same happens with the bond that you hold, but you can hang on to it until maturity and get the face value out of it.  That said, it would take some effort to put together a decent bond portfolio, especially if you were going to buy anything rated lower than the absolute best. I think it'd be fun to do, but I'm weird that way.


"I am neither a lawyer nor a tax accountant, and if you're dealing with serious money I suggest you consult a professional. But my understanding is: If you make a loan at zero interest or at below-market rates, the IRS will consider the difference between the interest that you do charge and the market rate to be a gift. That is, if someone could get a loan from a bank and he'd pay $1000 in interest for the year, but instead you loan him the money as a friend interest free, than as far as the IRS is concerned you have given him a $1000 gift, and you could potentially have to pay gift tax. Or they might ""impute"" the interest to you and tax you on $1000 of additional income. If you have no agreement on repayment terms, if it's all, ""Hey Joe, just pay me back when you can"", then the IRS is likely to consider the entire ""loan"" to be a gift. There's an annual exclusion on gifts -- I think it's now $13,000 -- so if you loan your buddy fifty bucks to tide him over until next pay day, the IRS isn't going to get involved in that. They're worried about more serious money. And yes, the IRS does ""police loan rates"". The IRS examines exact numbers for all sorts of things. If, say, you go on a 100-mile overnight business trip, and the company gives you $10,000 for travel expenses, the IRS is likely to say that this is not a tax-deductible travel expense at all but a sham to hide part of your salary from taxes. Or if you donate a pair of old socks to charity and declare a $500 charitable contribution deduction, the IRS will say that that is not a realistic value for a pair of old socks and disallow the deduction. Etc. A small discrepancy from market rates can be justified for any number of reasons. If the book value of a used car is $5000 and you sell it to your neighbor for $4900, the IRS is unlikely to question it, there are any number of legitimate business reasons why you had to give a discount to make the sale. But if you sell it to him for $50, they may declare that this is not a sale but a gift. Etc."


Your cons say it all. I would not be buying stocks based soley on a high dividend yield. In fact companies with very high dividend yields tend to do poorer than companies investing at least part of their earnings back into the company. Make sure at least that the company's earnings is more than the dividend yield being offered.


Note the above is only for shares. There are different rules for other assets like House, Jewellery, Mutual Funds, Debt Funds. Refer to the Income Tax guide for more details.


This will not bankrupt anyone. It is not like Gawker. Gawker went bankrupt due to some uniqueness i n Florida law where you had to put the money up befire being able to appeal. I can find no evidence of any such law in South Dakota. So, even if the jury fucks ABC ten ways to Sunday, it seems incredibly unlikely this survives appeal.   And, as the article points out, different circumstances as well. The comparison is misplaced.


Wrong message. I initially thought this was true, but it's not as cut and dry as people want to make it seem like it is. People usually try to say that he's just a bad CEO for Sears, and while this is completely true, the long game isn't as cut and dry.   By buying a majority of Sears, he's using his power to authorize the sale of properties to himself, which he's then re-leasing back out when Sears fails to pay him (as Sears' landlord). Lampert isn't looking to fix the house -- he's looking to put the homeowner out of business, buy it, re-lease it to the homeowner, hike up the rates, then when the homeowner can't pay, re-lease it back out to someone else.   It's very tangled and that's exactly why shareholders are going to lose big time when Sears declares Chapter 7 bankruptcy.


No expert here, but my guess is because of the shear scale and wide impacts this would cause.  A ban is a pretty severe step, so companies and individuals need to take steps to move in that direction. Gas stations, gas truckers, oil refineries, auto shops, dealerships, manufacturers, auto parts stores, are among the many, many affected.  If they required that change to happen in three years, it would be catastrophic. We spent a century getting ourselves into this mess. Can't hastily jump out.


>do you feel the same about the EPA under Scott Pruitt?  What does how I *feel* about the FCC or EPA matter? This article is mainly criticizing having companies in an advisory comity meant to get advice from companies. No feelings are involved to know this is garbage, although feelings may be blocking you from seeing it.


"Make sure you invest in a coffin and/or funeral related industry -- that way you can at least ""cash in"" on the Boomer generation as they ""cash out"".  ;-)  Also, in the coming decades there will soon be LOTS of jobs in nursing homes: dispensing pills, wheeling the residents to/from the TV room, giving sponge-baths, changing bedpans, etc."


SECTION | CONTENT :--|:-- Title | The Wolf Of Wall Street Heavy Metal Meshuggah - Rational Gaze Length | 0:00:25           ****   ^(I am a bot, this is an auto-generated reply | )^[Info](https://www.reddit.com/u/video_descriptionbot) ^| ^[Feedback](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=video_descriptionbot&subject=Feedback) ^| ^(Reply STOP to opt out permanently)