Split (1)

train · 103k rows

text stringlengths 146 45.7k
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How to share income after marriage and kids? ### Answer: Now I have been trying to figure out how to split the money that we both earn. From what I can see there are several concepts but none of them really seems ideal to me. There is nothing fair or unfair in such arrangements. It is what you both agree. You can try and make this as scientific as possible. But then there is no golden rule. For example, your girlfriend makes 2200 now and due to child, she is making 1100. The child is both of your responsibility; so you need to compensate half of her salary loss. 550 and she takes the other half. If you hire a nanny to look after you kinds, it would say cost you 500. But your girlfriend is doing that job, so she should get additional 500 from common pot. Plus due to loss of few years in looking after the children, she has a lost opportunity in career growth. i.e. she may indefinitely make less money than she can... So one gets into all kinds of theories and analysis and any arrangements will have some or the other gaps. So my suggestion, don't get too scientific about it. Just talk it out as to what you both feel how this should be and arrive it. It is something every individual has to agree. It also make sense to have the large assets [or assets that matter], like house, car etc in clear title and who gets what in case you decide to separate. Other should be incidental. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How to share income after marriage and kids? ### Answer: I started this off as a comment to Joe's answer, but it got rather messy in that form so I'll just post it as a separate answer instead. I suggest that you read Joe's answer first. I believe you are overthinking this. First, you really should be discussing the matter with your girlfriend. We can provide suggestions, but only the two of you can decide what feels right for the two of you. Strangers on the Internet can never have as complete a picture of your financial situations, your plans, and your personalities, as the two of you together. That said, here's a starting point that I would use as input to such a discussion: As you can see, a common theme to all of this is transparency and communication. There is a reason for this: a marriage without proper communication can never work out well in the long term. I don't know about Germany specifically, but disagreements about money tends to be a major reason in couples splitting up. By setting your lives up for transparency in money matters from the beginning, you significantly reduce the risk of this happening to you. Scott Hanselman discusses a very similar way of doing things, but phrases it differently, in Relationship Hacks: An Allowance System for Adults. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How to share income after marriage and kids? ### Answer: I won't answer in a detailed manner because most people at this site like answers with certain bias' on these questions, like pool resources always relative to which partner is asking. If you follow the above advice, you are hoping things work out. Great! What if they don't? It will be very messy. Unlike most of my peers, I did NOT follow the above advice and had a very clean exit with both of us feeling very good (and no lawyers got involved either; win-win for both of us with all the money we saved). One assumption people make is the person with the lowest income has the strictest limits. This is not always true; I grew up in poverty, but have a very high income and detest financial waste. I can live on about €12,000 a year and even though my partner made a little less, my partner liked to spend. Counter intuitive, right? I was supposed to be the spender because I had a large income, but I wasn't. Also, think about an example with food - sharing expenses. Is it fair for one partner to split whey protein if one partner consumes it, but the other doesn't (answer: in my view, no)? My advice based on your questions: Balance the frugal vs. spendthrift mentality rather than income ratios. If you're both frugal, then focus on income ratios - but one may be more frugal than the other and the thought of spending €300 a month on housing is just insane to a person like me, whereas to most it's too little. Are you both exactly the same with this mentality - and be honest? Common costs that you both agree on can be easily split 50-50 and you can often benefit from economies of scale (like internet, cell phone). Both of us feel very strongly about being financially independent and if possible we both don't want to take money from each other. This is so healthy for a relationship. My partner and I split and we both still really love each other. We're headed in different directions, but we did not want to end bitterly. What you wrote is part of why we ended so well; we both were very independent financially. Kids are going to be a challenge because they come with expenses that partners don't always agree on. What do you and her think of childcare, for instance? You really want to know all this upfront; again a frugal vs. spendthrift mindset could cause some big tensions. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How to share income after marriage and kids? ### Answer: I think you have succumbed to a category error. The rational course forward is to classify all property as either his, hers, or family's. Each contributes a portion of wages to the family. Each logs hours spent performing familial duties and is "paid" in virtual dollars into their family account at market rates for that service. At any point actual plus virtual dollars are summed to assess the value of the family and percentages are allocated to each party on this basis. Put this into a pre-nuptual agreement. At the time of the inevitable divorce you leave with yours, she leaves with hers, family's assets are divided as described, and division of children should be as King Solomon suggested. Or you could do what I did: Put all your property (and debts) into one pot. Make sure each partner can competently manage bookkeeping and investments. Accumulate a family net worth sufficient to divide in two and each have financial independence. (I'm working on this last step.) ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How to share income after marriage and kids? ### Answer: I can only share with you my happened with my wife and I. First, and foremost, if you think you need to protect your assets for some reason then do so. Be open and honest about it. If we get a divorce, X stays with me, and Y stays with you. This seems silly, even when your doing it, but it's important. You can speak with a lawyer about this stuff as you need to, but get it in writing. Now I know this seems like planning for failure, but if you feel that foo is important to you, and you want to retain ownership of foo no mater what, then you have to do this step. It also works both ways. You can use, with some limitations, this to insulate your new family unit from your personal risks. For example, my business is mine. If we break up it stays mine. The income is shared, but the business is mine. This creates a barrier that if someone from 10 years ago sues my business, then my wife is protected from that. Keep in mind, different countries different rules. Next, and this is my advise. Give up on "his and hers" everything. It's just "ours". Together you make 5400€ decide how to spend 5400€ together. Pick your goals together. The pot is 5400€. End of line. It doesn't matter how much from one person or how much from another (unless your talking about mitigating losses from sick days or injuries or leave etc.). All that matters is that you make 5400€. Start your budgeting there. Next setup an equal allowance. That is money, set aside for non-sense reasons. I like to buy video games, my wife likes to buy books. This is not for vacation, or stuff together, but just little, tiny stuff you can do for your self, without asking "permission". The number should be small, and equal. Maybe 50€. Finally setup a budget. House Stuff 200€, Car stuff 400€. etc. etc. then it doesn't matter who bought the house stuff. You only have to coordinate so that you don't both buy house stuff. After some time (took us around 6 months) you will find out how this works and you can add on some rules. For example, I don't go to Best Buy alone. I will spend too much on "house stuff". My wife doesn't like to make the budget, so I handle that, then we go over it. Things like that. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How to share income after marriage and kids? ### Answer: My own personal point of view. I earn about twice what my wife to be earns. We are planning on getting married next year. I ultimately do all the finances (basically because she hates that kind of thing) not because I'm in charge or whatever. To work out how we do this I wrote a spreadsheet: At the top it has my monthly pay in one column and her's in another. I add all our bills (against me initally). At the bottom I have a total of both of our "spending money". Spending money is wage - bills - savings I then move money out of my column into her column. My goal is that we pay all the bills and save a decent amount and have roughly the same amount to spend each month. So each persons spending money should be roughly equal. I then fine tune this as things change (if we get a pay rise we alter it, if a bill goes up or down we alter it) To manage this we have 4 accounts, a joint account to pay bills (both give a set amount to each mont), a savings acount (both give a set amount to each month) and our own accounts (where we get paid and where our spending money lives). Like everyone else says, this seems fair to me. I don't earn more, we both earn "an amount" and this should be split equally. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How to share income after marriage and kids? ### Answer: You currently have 5400€ between you and 2600€ expenses leaving you 2800€. You currently keep 1900€ and she keeps 900€ at the end of each month splitting 68/32. If you marry and have a child, your combined income will go down to 4900€ while your expenses will increase by 300€ to 2900€ leaving 2000€. You could continue to split 68/32 leaving you 1360€ and her 640€. If you use this split you will lose 540€ and she will lose 260€. That's a 28% loss for you and a 28% loss for her from your end of month take home. So far it sounds reasonably fair. What about the future? For each raise, the person getting the raise keeps 66% of their raises. If you get the majority of the raises, you keep the majority of the benefit, but both benefit from the increase. Any future increases in expenses can be split as negotiated based on who benefits from those increases. That's basically what you are doing now considering that adding a child will cost a lot of her time, not just your money. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How to share income after marriage and kids? ### Answer: nan ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How to share income after marriage and kids? ### Answer: Some basic thoughts, mostly on fairness. I guess the answer doesn't really fit this site, it's more about ethics, but this fits the question which isn't really just about money either. So when both work the same amount, it seems appropriate that both get the same mount of money, doesn't it? That is, the scheme of (as already contained in your question and in some other answers) is fair by this logic. Pay attention to hidden money: for example the one who works more for money might automatically get a pension funded this way. This is hidden money which already goes to only one partner, so when dividing equally, you'll need to take that into account (or just include "equal pensions for both" in the family's needs directly). ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How to share income after marriage and kids? ### Answer: This would be my suggestion: I would approach the problem thinking about the loss of monthly income you (as a couple) will be facing due to your wife's change to a part time job and divide that loss between the two of you. This means that if she goes from 2200 to 1100 monthly, you'd be losing 1100 per month. To share this loss, you could repay your wife your part of the loss (550) so both of you are 550 euro down. However, this 550 loss is a bigger burden for your wife than it is for you, so this amount could be adjusted to make up for this inequality. To make calculations simple and avoid developing a complicated model, you could give the 800 euro above your 3k to your wife for as long as she has to work part time. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How to share income after marriage and kids? ### Answer: What equal percentage of both you and your girlfriend's income will cover the essential household expenses? Although we earned different amounts, both of us turned over half our income over to the household. Between us this percentage slice from each of our earnings neatly covered all the essentials. The amounts contributed were different, but the contributions where nonetheless equal. Beyond this the financial relationship was fast and loose. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How to share income after marriage and kids? ### Answer: The bottom line is choosing the right partner. If your partner works as hard as you do, than everything should be split, irregardless of who makes more. Unfortunately, my bf, now by separated husband, borrowed money from me before we were married. I saw a lack of work ethic in him from the beginning, loved him anyway and married him but decided to keep my money separate as a result. This was a beginning with lack of trust and knowing I would be the higher earner, harder worker, and better provider. Down the road he won a lawsuit and got about $700k. I saw about $25k of this money to pay bills created with the intention of him paying them off when he got the money, and because he pilfered it away, we lost our house and it ended in my leaving.... I'm still doing ok because I work hard for what I have. He is struggling. We were never on the same page, never discussed finances because of his lack of work ethic and my mistrust of how he would decide how the money would be used. Sadly, who you decide to be your partner is the most important decision here...It should be based on mutual respect, both working hard to achieve a common goal, and communicating the budget every year, perhaps even each month.... I'm the terrible example. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How to share income after marriage and kids? ### Answer: I think the problem is that you've made a math error. This child would not be costing you 300 per month, it will be costing you 1400 per month. 1100 of this is in a donation of salable hours rather than cash, but helpfully you have a number right there as to how much someone is willing to pay for these hours so the math is still doable. So, if you are indeed splitting your expenses fifty-fifty, you should chip 1100 into the pot to match your wife's contribution. It would make the most sense, I think, to have your part of this contribution cover some of your mutual expenses, and if any is left over, save it up for the day that your child would cost more than that 300 in a month - when you need extra clothes, or have to replace something they destroyed, or want to pay for extra opportunities (camps, educational games, lessons), or a a savings that can be used for major future expenses (higher education, first car, milestone celebrations, safety net when starting out). Of course, if your family is indeed a priority, you might consider making an equal investment in your family - say, half your income (1800) to match half her time going into the building of the family. After all, the decision to start a family should be an investment of time and value, not just a minimum bid for expenses. And again, any extra can be spent on mutual expenses, saved up for future costs, or left as your child's "savings" for major expenses or safety net. I suppose I should mention that you perhaps could get away with covering half her contribution (550 per month, on the face of it), as that should also "balance" out the monthly expenses. Even this much would be enough to put her back into the green on her covering her own costs. Of course, in this case you might want to take into account that while she's working 38,5 hours per week now, running a household is, I've heard, more closely equivalent to a 60-hour week, plus or minus being "on call" for a further 100 hours a week. Trying to calculate the absolute minimum payment on your part to match the investment of hours on hers is likely to be a bit more tricky than just matching the salable hours not worked, if you're set on income ratios and splitting costs "as they are". Also, you might want to rethink your criteria for sharing income completely or what makes certain divisions of costs "unfair". You mention one reason it would be unfair is that you have a "more stressful job" - well, your job may well be more stressful than her job now, but it is likely to be less so than raising a child (her new job). As for investment of time and energy for your education entitling you to a larger amount of pay, again, raising a child is likely to be a larger investment of time, money, and anxiety than your education, but her pay (or even share of the costs) doesn't seem to be balanced in response. I'm not gonna tell you what is fair, that's for you to work out, just suggesting you really think it through before deciding what would be fair or not. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Is the gross amount of US debt dangerous for the small investor? ### Answer: Not a lot, directly. Your biggest direct risk is that you could buy the debt, and buy it at too high a price (i.e. too low an interest rate) and not make as much money as you ought (and maybe not enough to cover inflation, especially if you buy long-term bonds at low interest rates.) The indirect risks are mostly that the debt could weigh on economic growth: There is also a question of monetary policy, inflation, and interest rates set by the Federal Reserve. Theoretically the government could be tempted to keep interest rates low (to save money) and buy its own bonds ("printing money"), which could cause inflation. Theoretically, they shouldn't, as price stability is one of the Fed's primary mandates. But if they did, inflation makes everything less predictable and is generally obnoxious, which makes everything more risky and drags on the economy. Also, if the nominal value of an asset rises due to inflation, you will likely need to pay taxes on that at some point if you sell it, even though its real value is the same. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: What are some time tested passive income streams? ### Answer: Dividends are a form of passive income. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: What are some time tested passive income streams? ### Answer: Royalties. (Once you start getting them.) ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: What are some time tested passive income streams? ### Answer: Renting a house out using a management company is mostly passive income. Earning affiliate income from companies that pay on a recurring basis is closer to passive income. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: What are some time tested passive income streams? ### Answer: Last year was a great opportunity for dividend stocks and MLPs. I have a few which are earning 6-9% of my investment basis cost. Municipal bonds are a good value now. If you have the connections, passive investments in convenience franchises or other commercial property are a good income stream. A Dunkin Donuts used to be an amazing money printing machine. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: What are some time tested passive income streams? ### Answer: Any kind of savings account is a passive income stream. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: What are some time tested passive income streams? ### Answer: I owned and managed a few residential properties. At one time the net cash flow was on the order of $1000 per month. But it was work. Lots of work. I was managing about 7 units. This does not count the gains in capital appreciation which were significant. Using a management company would have put the cash flow at 0 or in the negative and would have lowered the quality of management IMO. Nothing comes for free... ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: What are some time tested passive income streams? ### Answer: You could buy debt/notes or other instruments that pay out periodically. Some examples are If there is an income stream you can discount the present value and then buy it/own the rights to income stream. Typically you pay a discounted price for the face value and then receive the income stream over time. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: What are some time tested passive income streams? ### Answer: Interest payments You can make loans to people and collect interest. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: What are some time tested passive income streams? ### Answer: There are lots of different ways to generate passive income. What is Passive Income? Basically it is income you receive without having to consistently work for it i.e. paid to do your day job or get paid by the hour; instead you do the work once and then receive ongoing payments like a recording artist getting paid royalties or a book author etc... Online Passive income Also some online business models can be great ways to generate passive income, you set up an automated system online to drive traffic and sell products either as the merchant or an affiliate and get paid regularly without having to do any more work... You just need to use SEO or PPC or media buys or online advertising to generate the automated traffic to your website which will have special landing pages and sales funnels that do the conversion and selling for you. If you are an affiliate you don't even have to handle any products, packaging, delivering etc... And if it’s a digital product like software or information products they can be sent straight to the customers automatically online then you can set up a system that can generate true passive income. Time consuming or expensive! However the above mentioned methods of generating passive income tend to require a lot of work or special skills, talent or knowledge and can be expensive or time consuming to set up. Preferred Method Therefore for many people the preferred passive income method is fully-managed hands free property investing or other types of investing for that matter. But for people who want full ownership of the income generating asset then property investing is the best as they can sell and have control over the capital invested, whereas investing in a business for example will have a lot of other variables to consider, like the business sector, the market factors, the management team and even down to individual employee performance. So in my opinion, if you have the money to invest then fully-managed hands free buy-to-let property investing is one of the best types of passive income available to us today. Some of the most popular income generating property assets today in the UK include • Student property • Care Homes • Residential buy-to-let ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How secure is my 403(b)? Can its assets be “raided”? ### Answer: The simple answer is that with the defined contribution plan: 401k, 403b, 457 and the US government TSP; the employer doesn't hold on to the funds. When they take your money from your paycheck there is a period of a few days or at the most a few weeks before they must turn the money over to the trustee running the program. If they are matching your contributions they must do the same with those funds. The risk is in that window of time between payday and deposit day. If the business folds, or enters bankruptcy protection, or decides to slash what they will contribute to the match in the future anything already sent to the trustee is out of their clutches. In the other hand a defined a benefit plan or pension plan: where you get X percent of your highest salary times the number of years you worked; is not protected from the company. These plans work by the company putting aide money each year based on a formula. The formula is complex because they know from history some employees never stick around long enough to get the pension. The money in a pension is invested outside the company but it is not out of the control of the company. Generally with a well run company they invest wisely but safely because if the value goes up due to interest or a rising stock market, the next year their required contribution is smaller. The formula also expects that they will not go out of business. The problems occur when they don't have the money to afford to make the contribution. Even governments have looked for relief in this area by skipping a deposit or delaying a deposit. There is some good news in this area because a pension program has to pay an annual insurance premium to The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation a quai-government agency of the federal government. If the business folds the PBGC steps in to protect the rights of the employees. They don't get all they were promised, but they do get a lot of it. None of those pension issues relate to the 401K like program. Once the money is transferred to the trustee the company has no control over the funds. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How secure is my 403(b)? Can its assets be “raided”? ### Answer: I assume you get your information from somewhere where they don't report the truth. I'm sorry if mentioning Fox News offended you, it was not my intention. But the way the question is phrased suggests that you know nothing about what "pension" means. So let me explain. 403(b) is not a pension account. Pension account is generally a "defined benefit" account, whereas 403(b)/401(k) and similar - are "defined contribution" accounts. The difference is significant: for pensions, the employer committed on certain amount to be paid out at retirement (the defined benefit) regardless of how much the employee/employer contributed or how well the account performed. This makes such an arrangement a liability. An obligation to pay. In other words - debt. Defined contribution on the other hand doesn't create such a liability, since the employer is only committed for the match, which is paid currently. What happens to your account after the employer deposited the defined contribution (the match) - is your problem. You manage it to the best of your abilities and whatever you have there when you retire - is yours, the employer doesn't owe you anything. Here's the problem with pensions: many employers promised the defined benefit, but didn't do anything about actually having money to pay. As mentioned, such a pension is essentially a debt, and the retiree is a debt holder. What happens when employer cannot pay its debts? Employer goes bankrupt. And when bankrupt - debtors are paid only part of what they were owed, and that includes the retirees. There's no-one raiding pensions. No-one goes to the bank with a gun and demands "give me the pension money". What happened was that the employers just didn't fund the pensions. They promised to pay - but didn't set aside any money, or set aside not enough. Instead, they spent it on something else, and when the time came that the retirees wanted their money - they didn't have any. That's what happened in Detroit, and in many other places. 403(b) is in fact the solution to this problem. Instead of defined benefit - the employers commit on defined contribution, and after that - it's your problem, not theirs, to have enough when you're retired. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How is an ETF's NAV determined? ### Answer: An ETF manager will only allow certain financial organisations to create and redeem ETF shares. These are called Authorised Participants (APs). The APs have the resources to bundled up packages of shares that they already own and hold in order to match the ETFs requirements. In the case of the EDEN ETF, this portfolio is the MSCI Denmark Index. Only APs transact business directly with the ETF manager. When ETF shares need to be created, the AP will bundle up the portfolio of shares and deliver them to the ETF manager. In return, the ETF manager will deliver to the AP the corresponding number of shares in the ETF. Note that no cash changes hands here. (These ETF shares are now available for trading in the market via the AP. Note that investors do not transact business directly with the ETF manager.) Similarly, when ETF shares need to be redeemed, the AP will deliver the ETF shares to the ETF manager. In return, the ETF manager will deliver to the AP the corresponding portfolio of shares. Again, no cash changes hands here. Normally, with an established and liquid ETF, investors like you and me will transact small purchases and sales of ETF shares with other small investors in the market. In the event that an AP needs to transact business with an investor, they will do so by either buying or selling the ETF shares. In the event that they have insufficient ETF shares to meet demand, they will bundle up a portfolio deliver them to the ETF provider in return for ETF shares, thus enabling them to meet demand. In the event that a lot of investors are selling and the AP ends up holding an excessive amount of ETF shares, they will deliver unwanted shares to the ETF manager in exchange for a portfolio of the underlying shares. According to this scheme, large liquidations of ETF holdings should not effect the share prices of the underlying portfolio. This is because the underlying shares are not sold in the market, rather they are simply returned to the AP in exchange for the ETF shares (Recall that no cash is changing hands in this type of transaction). The corresponding trail of dividends and distributions to ETF share holders follows the same scheme. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Stop paying VAT on digital sales when earnings are under £81k ### Answer: You can't currently avoid it. The reason the legislation was introduced was to prevent the big-name developers from setting up shop in a low-VAT country and selling apps to citizens of EU countries that would normally be paying a much higher VAT. You need to register for VAT and file quarterly nil-returns so that you get that money back. It's a hassle, but probably worth it just to recoup those funds. From an article in Kotaku from late 2014: You see, in the UK we have a rather sensible exemption on VAT for businesses that earn under £81,000 a year. This allows people to run small businesses - like making and selling games in your spare time, for instance - without the administrative nightmare of registering as a business and paying VAT on sales. Unfortunately, none of the other EU member states had an exemption like this, so when the new legislation was being put together, there was no exemption factored in. That means that if someone makes even £1 from selling something digital to another person in another EU country, they now have to be VAT registered in the UK AND they have to pay tax on that sale at whatever rate the buyer’s country of residence has set. That could be 25% in Sweden, 21% in the Netherlands, and so on. [...] There’s one piece of good news: even though anyone who sells digital stuff now has to be VAT-registered in the UK, they don’t actually have to pay VAT on sales to people in the UK if they earn less than £81,000 from it. (This concession was achieved earlier this month after extensive lobbying.) But they’ll still have to submit what’s called a “nil-return”, which is essentially a tax return with nothing on it, every quarter in order to use the VAT MOSS service. That’s a lot of paperwork. Obviously Brexit may have a significant impact on all this, so the rules might change. This is the official Google Link to how they've implemented this and for which countries it affects: https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/138000?hl=en Due to VAT laws in the European Union (EU), Google is responsible for determining, charging, and remitting VAT for all Google Play Store digital content purchases by EU customers. Google will send VAT for EU customers' digital content purchases to the appropriate authority. You don't need to calculate and send VAT separately for EU customers. Even if you're not located in the EU, this change in VAT laws will still apply. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why do some people go through contortions to avoid paying taxes, yet spend money on expensive financial advice, high-interest loans, etc? ### Answer: One is a choice the other is not. While they are both liabilities on the balance sheet, in the real world they are quite different. We do not feel as much ownership over our money that goes to interest payments as we do over our tax payments. Taxes pay for our government and the services it provides. Interest, on the other hand, is what we pay in order to have a bank loan us money. Similar to paying for a good or service obtained from some other business, we do not feel we have a say in what the bank does with that money. If we disapprove of a business' practices, we stop doing business with them; assuming there are other choices. We can not practically avoid dealing with our government. We certainly feel that we should have a say in what is done with our tax money. I doubt there is anyone in the world that completely approves of their government's spending. It is very easy to feel marginalized with regard to our tax payments. For example, some people feel resentment because their taxes fund the welfare rolls. All that said, I believe there is little overlap between the two groups. It seems to me that you are referring to those with large amounts of high interest (e.g. credit card) debt. I doubt that a large percentage of them are scouring the tax laws, looking for deductions and loopholes. If they had that mindset, they would also be working hard to get out of the hole they are in. In summary, we choose to pay a financial adviser, to take out a loan or to obtain a credit card. We do not choose to pay taxes. Since taxes are supposed to pay for our government and things which should benefit everyone, we want a say in what is done with it. This is also the case because it is forced on us. ("Fine son, I'll lend you some money, but I don't want you buying cigarettes with it.") Since our say is limited and we likely will not approve of everything our government does, we want to exert what control we do have: reduce our payments as best we can. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why do some people go through contortions to avoid paying taxes, yet spend money on expensive financial advice, high-interest loans, etc? ### Answer: I think sometimes this is simply ignorance. If my marginal tax rate is 25%, then I can either pay tax deductible interest of $10K or pay income tax of $2.5K. I think most americans don't realize that paying $10K of tax deductible interest (think mortgage) only saves them $2.5K in taxes. In other words, I'd be $7.5K ahead if I didn't have the debt, but did pay higher taxes. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why do some people go through contortions to avoid paying taxes, yet spend money on expensive financial advice, high-interest loans, etc? ### Answer: To some extent, I suppose, most people are okay with paying Some taxes. But, as they teach in Intro to Economics, "Decisions are made on the margin". Few are honestly expecting to get away with paying no taxes at all. They are instead concerned about how much they spend on taxes, and how effectively. The classic defense of taxes says "Roads and national defense and education and fire safety are all important." This is not really the problem that people have with taxes. People have problems with gigantic ongoing infrastructure boondoggles that cost many times what they were projected to cost (a la Boston's Big Dig) while the city streets aren't properly paved. People don't have big problems with a city-run garbage service; they have problems with the garbagemen who get six-figure salaries plus a guaranteed union-protected job for life and a defined-benefit pension plan which they don't contribute a penny to (and likewise for their health plans). People don't have a big problem with paying for schools; they have a big problem with paying more than twice the national average for schools and still ending up with miserable schools (New Jersey). People have a problem when the government issues bonds, invests the money in the stock market for the public employee pension plan, projects a 10% annual return, contractually guarantees it to the employees, and then puts the taxpayers on the hook when the Dow ends up at 11,000 instead of ~25,000 (California). And people have a problem with the attitude that when they don't pay taxes they're basically stealing that money, or that tax cuts are morally equivalent to a handout, and the insinuation that they're terrible people for trying to keep some of their money from the government. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why do some people go through contortions to avoid paying taxes, yet spend money on expensive financial advice, high-interest loans, etc? ### Answer: The bank provides a service that the customer voluntarily agreed to - the bank will provide funds to the customer now and the customer will pay back those funds plus interest in the future. The arragement wasn't forced onto the customer. The government, on the other hand, takes money (the exchange is not volutary) from people to provide a "service". This frustrates a lot of people - myself included - since people do not have a choice. They must pay the taxes or go to jail (or have their house confisicated, wages garnished, etc.). It gets even more frustrating when the government takes money from the people and gives it to the banks, auto companies, insurance companies, etc.. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why do some people go through contortions to avoid paying taxes, yet spend money on expensive financial advice, high-interest loans, etc? ### Answer: An example, where I live. When you buy a house, the seller wants 'black' money. This is because that way the seller pays less taxes. However, it's not smart for the buyer to pay in black, as the tax reductions are lower. Eventually, when the buyer tries to sell the house, he has to declare the difference, so a higher buy price should not have affected... apart from the notary minutes. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Is housing provided by a university as employer reported on 1040? ### Answer: To answer your question directly, this is a taxable benefit that they are providing for you in lieu of higher wages. It is taxable to the employee as income and through payroll taxes. It is taxable to the employer for their half of the payroll taxes. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Is housing provided by a university as employer reported on 1040? ### Answer: Since you worked as an RA, the university should send you a W2 form. The taxable wages line in that form would be the sum of both the direct salary and employer paid benefits that are taxable. As such you should not need to do anything than enter the numbers that they provide you. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Is housing provided by a university as employer reported on 1040? ### Answer: You should ask a CPA or tax lawyer to what extent living in specific housing provided by the employer as a job requirement is exempt from taxation. You might find a nice surprise. Your tax professional can also help you to report the items properly if mis-reported. Much of this is in the article you cite in the question, but perhaps a look at some of the original sources is warranted and will show why some expert advice might be useful. I would argue that an RA who is required to police and counsel undergrads in a college dorm in exchange for a room or a flat is closer to a worker with quarters on a ship or at an oil well than a full professor who receives a rental home in a neighborhood near the university as a benefit. In the first case living at the provided premises is necessary to do the job, but in the second case it is merely a benefit of the job. The IRS Publication 15-B guidance on employer provided housing is not entirely clear, so you might want to get some additional advice: Lodging on Your Business Premises You can exclude the value of lodging you furnish to an employee from the employee's wages if it meets the following tests. It is furnished on your business premises. It is furnished for your convenience. The employee must accept it as a condition of employment. Different tests may apply to lodging furnished by educational institutions. See section 119(d) of the Internal Revenue Code for details. If you allow your employee to choose to receive additional pay instead of lodging, then the lodging, if chosen, isn’t excluded. The exclusion also doesn't apply to cash allowances for lodging. On your business premises. For this exclusion, your business premises is generally your employee's place of work. For example, if you're a household employer, then lodging furnished in your home to a household employee would be considered lodging furnished on your business premises. For special rules that apply to lodging furnished in a camp located in a foreign country, see section 119(c) of the Internal Revenue Code and its regulations. For your convenience. Whether or not you furnish lodging for your convenience as an employer depends on all the facts and circumstances. You furnish the lodging to your employee for your convenience if you do this for a substantial business reason other than to provide the employee with additional pay. This is true even if a law or an employment contract provides that the lodging is furnished as pay. However, a written statement that the lodging is furnished for your convenience isn't sufficient. Condition of employment. Lodging meets this test if you require your employees to accept the lodging because they need to live on your business premises to be able to properly perform their duties. Examples include employees who must be available at all times and employees who couldn't perform their required duties without being furnished the lodging. It doesn't matter whether you must furnish the lodging as pay under the terms of an employment contract or a law fixing the terms of employment. Example of qualifying lodging. You employ Sam at a construction project at a remote job site in Alaska. Due to the inaccessibility of facilities for the employees who are working at the job site to obtain lodging and the prevailing weather conditions, you furnish lodging to your employees at the construction site in order to carry on the construction project. You require that your employees accept the lodging as a condition of their employment. You may exclude the lodging that you provide from Sam's wages. Additionally, since sufficient eating facilities aren’t available near your place of employment, you may also exclude meals you provide to Sam from his wages, as discussed under Meals on Your Business Premises , later in this section. Example of nonqualifying lodging. A hospital gives Joan, an employee of the hospital, the choice of living at the hospital free of charge or living elsewhere and receiving a cash allowance in addition to her regular salary. If Joan chooses to live at the hospital, the hospital can't exclude the value of the lodging from her wages because she isn't required to live at the hospital to properly perform the duties of her employment. One question would be how the conflict with IRC 119(d) is resolved for someone who must live in the dorm to watch over the dorm and its undergrads. Here's 26USC119(d) from LII: (d) Lodging furnished by certain educational institutions to employees (1) In general In the case of an employee of an educational institution, gross income shall not include the value of qualified campus lodging furnished to such employee during the taxable year. (2) Exception in cases of inadequate rent Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the extent of the excess of— (A) the lesser of— (i) 5 percent of the appraised value of the qualified campus lodging, or (ii) the average of the rentals paid by individuals (other than employees or students of the educational institution) during such calendar year for lodging provided by the educational institution which is comparable to the qualified campus lodging provided to the employee, over (B) the rent paid by the employee for the qualified campus lodging during such calendar year. The appraised value under subparagraph (A)(i) shall be determined as of the close of the calendar year in which the taxable year begins, or, in the case of a rental period not greater than 1 year, at any time during the calendar year in which such period begins. (3) Qualified campus lodging For purposes of this subsection, the term “qualified campus lodging” means lodging to which subsection (a) does not apply and which is— (A) located on, or in the proximity of, a campus of the educational institution, and (B) furnished to the employee, his spouse, and any of his dependents by or on behalf of such institution for use as a residence. (4) Educational institution, etc. For purposes of this subsection— (A) In generalThe term “educational institution” means— (i) an institution described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) (or an entity organized under State law and composed of public institutions so described), or (ii) an academic health center. (B) Academic health centerFor purposes of subparagraph (A), the term “academic health center” means an entity— (i) which is described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(iii), (ii) which receives (during the calendar year in which the taxable year of the taxpayer begins) payments under subsection (d)(5)(B) or (h) of section 1886 of the Social Security Act (relating to graduate medical education), and (iii) which has as one of its principal purposes or functions the providing and teaching of basic and clinical medical science and research with the entity’s own faculty. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Capital Gains in an S Corp ### Answer: These are all factually correct claims. S-Corporation is a pass-through entity, so whatever gain you have on the corporate level - is passed to the shareholders. If your S-Corp has capital gains - you'll get your pro-rata share of the capital gains. Interest? The same. Dividends? You get it on your K-1. Earned income? Taxed as such to you. I.e.: whether you earn income as a S-Corp or as a sole proprietor - matters not. That's the answer to your bottom line question. The big issue, however, is this: you cannot have more than 25% passive income in your S-Corp. You pass that limit (three consecutive years, one-off is ok) - your S-Corp automatically converts to C-Corp, and you're taxed at the corporate level at the corporate rates (you then lose the capital gains rates, personal brackets, etc). This means that an S-Corp cannot be an investment company. Most (75%+) of its income has to be earned, not passive. Another problem with S-Corp is that people who work as self-proprietors incorporated as S-Corp try to abuse it and claim that the income they earned by the virtue of their own personal performance shouldn't be taxed as self-employed income. IRS frowns upon such a position, and if considerable amounts are at stake will take you all the way up to the Tax Court to prove you wrong. This has happened before, numerously. You should talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA/Attorney licensed in your state) to educate you about what S-Corp is and how it is taxed, and whether or not it is appropriate for you. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Capital Gains in an S Corp ### Answer: Lets just get to the point...Ordinary income (gains) earned from S-Corp operations (i.e. income earned after all expenses for providing services or selling products) is passed through to the owners/shareholders and taxed at the owner's personal tax rate. Separately, if an S-Corp earns capital gains (i.e. the S-Corp buys and sells stock, earns dividends from investments, etc), those gains are passed through to the owners and taxed at a capital gains rate Capital gains are not the same as ordinary income (gains). Don't get the two confused, they are as different for S-Corp taxation as they are for personal taxation. In some cases an exception occurs, but only when the S-Corp was formally a C-Corp and the C-Corp had non-distributed earnings or losses. This is a separate issue whereas the undistributed C-Corp gains/losses are treated differently than the S-Corp gains/losses. It takes years of college coursework and work experience to grasp the vast arena of tax. It should not be so complex, but it is this complex. It is not within the scope of the non-tax professional to make sense of this stuff. The CPA exams, although very difficult and thorough, only scrape the surface of tax and accounting. I hope this provides some perspective on any questions regarding business tax for S-Corps and any other entity type. Hire a good CPA... if you can find one. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Capital Gains in an S Corp ### Answer: A nondividend distribution is typically a return of capital; in other words, you're getting money back that you've contributed previously (and thus would have been taxed upon in previous years when those funds were first remunerated to you). Nondividend distributions are nontaxable, so they do not represent income from capital gains, but do effect your cost basis when determining the capital gain/loss once that capital gain/loss is realized. As an example, publicly-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs) generally distribute a return of capital back to shareholders throughout the year as a nondividend distribution. This is a return of a portion of the shareholder's original capital investment, not a share of the REITs profits, so it is simply getting a portion of your original investment back, and thus, is not income being received (I like to refer to it as "new income" to differentiate). However, the return of capital does change the cost basis of the original investment, so if one were to then sell the shares of the REIT (in this example), the basis of the original investment has to be adjusted by the nondividend distributions received over the course of ownership (in other words, the cost basis will be reduced when the shares are sold). I'm wondering if the OP could give us some additional information about his/her S-Corp. What type of business is it? In the course of its business and trade activity, does it buy and sell securities (stocks, etc.)? Does it sell assets or business property? Does it own interests in other corporations or partnerships (sales of those interests are one form of capital gain). Long-term capital gains are taxed at rates lower than ordinary income, but the IRS has very specific rules as to what constitutes a capital gain (loss). I hate to answer a question with a question, but we need a little more information before we can weigh-in on whether you have actual capital gains or losses in the course of your S-Corporation trade. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why do stocks go up? Is it due to companies performing well, or what else? [duplicate] ### Answer: The value of a stock ultimately is related to the valuation of a corporation. As part of the valuation, you can estimate the cash flows (discounted to present time) of the expected cash flows from owning a share. This stock value is the so-called "fundamental" value of a stock. What you are really asking is, how is the stock's market price and the fundamental value related? And by asking this, you have implicitly assumed they are not the same. The reason that the fundamental value and market price can diverge is that simply, most shareholders will not continue holding the stock for the lifespan of a company (indeed some companies have been around for centuries). This means that without dividends or buybacks or liquidations or mergers/acquisitions, a typical shareholder cannot reasonably expect to recoup their share of the company's equity. In this case, the chief price driver is the aggregate expectation of buyers and sellers in the marketplace, not fundamental evaluation of the company's balance sheet. Now obviously some expectations are based on fundamentals and expert opinions can differ, but even when all the experts agree roughly on the numbers, it may be that the market price is quite a ways away from their estimates. An interesting example is given in this survey of behavioral finance. It concerns Palm, a wholly-owned subsidiary of 3Com. When Palm went public, its shares went for such a high price, they were significantly higher than 3Com's shares. This mispricing persisted for several weeks. Note that this facet of pricing is often given short shrift in standard explanations of the stock market. It seems despite decades of academic research (and Nobel prizes being handed out to behavioral economists), the knowledge has been slow to trickle down to laymen, although any observant person will realize something is amiss with the standard explanations. For example, before 2012, the last time Apple paid out dividends was 1995. Are we really to believe that people were pumping up Apple's stock price from 1995 to 2012 because they were waiting for dividends, or hoping for a merger or liquidation? It doesn't seem plausible to me, especially since after Apple announced dividends that year, Apple stock ended up taking a deep dive, despite Wall Street analysts stating the company was doing better than ever. That the stock price reflects expectations of the future cash flows from the stock is a thinly-disguised form of the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH), and there's a lot of evidence contrary to the EMH (see references in the previously-linked survey). If you believe what happened in Apple's case was just a rational re-evaluation of Apple stock, then I think you must be a hard-core EMH advocate. Basically (and this is elaborated at length in the survey above), fundamentals and market pricing can become decoupled. This is because there are frictions in the marketplace making it difficult for people to take advantage of the mispricing. In some cases, this can go on for extended periods of time, possibly even years. Part of the friction is caused by strong beliefs by market participants which can often shift pressure to supply or demand. Two popular sayings on Wall Street are, "It doesn't matter if you're right. You have to be right at the right time." and "It doesn't matter if you're right, if the market disagrees with you." They suggest that you can make the right decision with where to put your money, but being "right" isn't what drives prices. The market does what it does, and it's subject to the whims of its participants. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why do stocks go up? Is it due to companies performing well, or what else? [duplicate] ### Answer: The same applies if you were looking for a business to buy: would you pay more for a business that is doing well making increasing profits year after year, or for a business that is not doing so well and is losing money. A share in a company is basically a small part of a company which a shareholder can own. So would you rather own a part of a company that is increasing profits year after year or one that is continuously losing money? Someone would buy shares in a company in order to make a better return than they could make elsewhere. They can make a profit through two ways: first, a share of the company's profits through dividends, and second capital gains from the price of the shares going up. Why does the price of the shares go up over the long term when a company does well and increases profits? Because when a company increases profits they are making more and more money which increases the net worth of the company. More investors would prefer to buy shares in a company that makes increasing profits because this will increase the net worth of the company, and in turn will drive the share price higher over the long term. A company's increase in profits creates higher demand for the company's shares. Think about it, if interest rates are so low like they are now, where it is hard to get a return higher than inflation, why wouldn't investors then search for higher returns in good performing companies in the stock market? More investors' and traders' wanting some of the pie, creates higher demand for good performing stocks driving the share price higher. The demand for these companies is there primarily because the companies are increasing their profits and net worth, so over the long term the share price will increase in-line with the net worth. Over the short to medium term other factors can also affect the share price, sometime opposite to how the company is actually performing; however this is a whole different answer to a whole different question. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why do stocks go up? Is it due to companies performing well, or what else? [duplicate] ### Answer: Prices can go up or down for a variety of reasons. If interest rates decline typically every stock goes up, and vice versa. Ultimately, there are two main value-related factors to a price of a stock: the dividends the company may issue or the payoff in the event the company is bought by someone else. Any dividend paid will give concrete value to a stock. For example, imagine a company has shares selling at $1.00 and they announce that they will pay a dividend at the end of the year of $1.00 per share. If their claim is believable then the stock is practically FREE at $1.00 a share, so in all likelihood the stock will go up a lot, just on the basis of the dividend alone. If a company is bought by another, they need to buy at least a majority of the shares, and in some cases all the shares. Since the price the buyer will be willing to pay for the company is related to its potential future income for the buyer, the more profitable the company is, the more a buyer will be willing to pay and hence the greater the value of the stock. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why do stocks go up? Is it due to companies performing well, or what else? [duplicate] ### Answer: Supply and Demand, pure and simple! There are two basic forms of this - a change in the quantity demanded/supplied at any given price, and a true change in the amount of demand/supply itself. Please note that this can be distinct from the underlying change in the value of the company and/or its expected future cash flows, which are a function of both financial performance and future expectations. If more people want the stock that are willing to sell it at a given price at a given point in time, sellers will begin to offer the stocks at higher prices until the market is no longer willing to bear the new price, and vice versa. This will reduce the quantity of stocks demanded by buyers until the quantity demanded and the quantity supplied once again reach an equilibrium, at which point a transaction occurs. Because people are motivated to buy and sell for different reasons at different times, and because people have different opinions on a constant flow of new information, prices change frequently. This is one of the reasons why executives of a recent IPO don't typically sell all of their stock at once. In addition to legal restrictions and the message this would send to the market, if they flooded the market with additional quantities of stock supplied, all else being equal, since there is no corresponding increase in the quantity demanded, the price would drop significantly. Sometimes, the demand itself for a company's stock shifts. Unlike a simple change in price driven by quantity supplied versus quantity demanded, this is a more fundamental shift. For example, let's suppose that the current demand for rare earth metals is driven by their commercial applications in consumer electronics. Now if new devices are developed that no longer require these metals, the demand for them will fall, regardless of the actions of individual buyers and sellers in the market. Another example is when the "rules of the game" for an industry change dramatically. Markets are behavioral. In this sense prices are most directly driven by human behavior, which hopefully is based on well-informed opinions and facts. This is why sometimes the price keeps going up when financial performance decreases, and why sometimes it does not rise even while performance is improving. This is also why some companies' stock continues to rise even when they lose huge sums of money year after year. The key to understanding these scenarios is the opinions and expectations that buyers and sellers have of that information, which is expressed in their market behavior. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why do stocks go up? Is it due to companies performing well, or what else? [duplicate] ### Answer: Remember that shares represent votes at the shareholders' meeting. If share price drops too far below the value of that percentage of the company, the company gets bought out and taken over. This tends to set a minimum share price derived from the company's current value. The share price may rise above that baseline if people expect it to be worth more in the future, or drop s bit below if people expect awful news. That's why investment is called speculation. If the price asked is too high to be justified by current guesses, nobody buys. That sets the upper limit at any given time. Since some of this is guesswork, the market is not completely rational. Prices can drop after good news if they'd been inflated by the expectation of better news, for example. In general, businesses which don't crash tend to grow. Hence the market as a whole generally trends upward if viewed on a long timescale. But there's a lot of noise on that curve; short term or single stocks are much harder to predict. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How did historical high tax rates work in practice? ### Answer: I remember in the 19th and early 20th century was the problem of Trusts set up by the wealthy to avoid taxes (hence the term "Anti-Trust") That's not what antitrust means. The trusts in that case were monopolies that used their outsized influence to dominate customers and suppliers. They weren't for tax evasion purposes. Trusts were actually older than a permanent income tax. Antitrust law was passed around the same time as a permanent income tax becoming legal. Prior to that income taxes were temporary taxes imposed to pay for wars. The primary ways to evade taxes was to move expenses out of the personal and into businesses or charities. The business could pay for travel, hotels, meals, and expenses. Or a charity could pay for a trip as a promotion activity (the infamous safari to Africa scheme). Charities can pay salaries to employees, so someone could fund a charity (tax deductible) and then use that money to pay people rather than giving gifts. If you declare your house as a historical landmark, a charity could maintain it. Subscribe to magazines at the office and set them in the waiting room after you read them. Use loyalty program rewards from business expenses for personal things. Sign up for a benefit for all employees at a steep discount and pay everyone a little less as a result. Barter. You do something for someone else (e.g. give them a free car), and they return the favor. Call it marketing or promotion ("Trump is carried away from his eponymous Tower in a sparkling new Mercedes Benz limousine."). Another option is to move income and expenses to another tax jurisdiction that has even fewer laws about it. Where the United States increasingly cracked down on personal expenses masquerading as business expenses, many jurisdictions would be happy just to see the money flow through and sit in their banks briefly. Tax policy is different now than it was then. Many things that would have worked then wouldn't work now. The IRS is more aggressive about insisting that some payments be considered income even if the organization writes the check directly to someone else. It's unclear what would happen if United States tax rates went back to the level they had in the fifties or even the seventies. Would tax evasion become omnipresent again? Or would it stay closer to current levels. The rich actually pay a higher percentage of the overall income taxes now than they did in the forties and fifties. And the rich in the United States pay a higher percentage of the taxes paid than the rich in other countries with higher marginal rates. Some of this may be more rich people in the US than other countries, but tax policy is part of that too. High income taxes make it hard to become rich. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Does the rise in ACA premiums affect employer-provided health insurance premiums? ### Answer: There are a lot of moving parts, individual premiums and annual increases have little to do with employer premiums and annual increases and vice versa. Most people think of XYZ insurer as a single company with a single pool of insured folks. This common knowledge isn't accurate. Insurers pool their business segments separately. This means that Individual, small business, mid-size business, and large business are all different operating segments from the viewpoint of the insurer. It's possible to argue that because so many people are covered by employer plans that individual plans have a hard time accumulating the required critical mass of subscribers to keep increases reasonable. Age banded rating: Individual coverage and small group coverage is age rated, meaning every year you get older. In addition to your age increase, the premium table for your plan also receives an increase. Employers with 100+ eligible employees are composite rated (in general), meaning every employee costs the same amount. The 18 year old employee costs $500 per month, the 64 year old costs $500 per month. Generally, the contributions an employee pays to participate in the plan are also common among all ages. This means that on a micro level increases can be more incremental because the employer is abstracting the gross premium. Composite rating generally benefits older folks while age rating generally benefits younger folks. Employer Morale Incentive: Generally the cost to an employee covered by an employer plan isn't directly correlated to the gross premium, and increases to the contribution(s) aren't necessarily correlated to the increases the employer receives. Employers are incentivised by employee morale. It's pretty common for employers to shoulder a disproportionate amount of an increase to keep everyone happy. Employers may offset the increase by shopping some ancillary benefit like group life insurance, or bundling the dental program with the medical carrier. Remember, employees don't pay premiums they pay contributions and some employers are more generous than others. Employers are also better at budgeting for planned increases than individuals are. Regulators: In many of the states that are making the news because of their healthcare premium increases there simply isn't a regulator scrutinizing increases. California requires all individual and small group premiums to be filed with the state and increases must be justified with some sort of math and approved by a regulator. Without this kind of oversight insurers have only the risk of subscriber flight to adjust plan provisions and press harder during provider contract negotiations. Expiring Transitional Reinsurance Fee and Funds: One of the fees introduced by healthcare reform paid by insurers and self-insured employers established a pot of money that individual plans could tap to cope with the new costs of the previously uninsurable folks. This fee and corresponding pot of money is set to expire and can no longer be taken in to account by underwriters. Increased Treatment Availability: It's important that as new facilities go online, insurer costs will increase. If a little town gets a new cancer clinic, that pool will see more cancer treatment costs simply as a result of increased treatment availability. Consider that medical care inflation is running at about 4.9% annually as of the most recent CPI table, the rest of the increases will result from the performance of that specific risk pool. If that risk pool had a lot of cancer diagnoses, you're looking at a big increase. If that risk pool was under priced the prior year you will see an above average increase, etc. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Does the rise in ACA premiums affect employer-provided health insurance premiums? ### Answer: It's likely impossible to determine why premiums are increasing in a meaningful way; not only is the interrelationship between the various data points very complex, but some of the increases are likely due to decisions by people who do not and will not publicly post what they decided and why. However, it is possible to compare health insurance premium increases over time to see if the increases in employer-sponsored health insurance premiums are comparable or not to the pre-ACA timeframe. Since the ACA phased in over a few years, we can compare the period 2008-2010 "pre-ACA" and 2013-2015 "post-ACA", ignoring 2011-2012 as being unclearly affected by the ACA phase-in. For this, I will look at single coverage premiums only for the purpose of simplifying the analysis. I found a good table of 2008-2010 premiums from the NCSL; they list the following: Kaiser Permanente had a good list for 2013-2015 here: From 2008-2010, the average growth was around 6% per year. From 2013-2015, the growth averaged about 3%. In both of these cases we are comparing total premiums (sum of employer and employee contributions). So, from a data-driven look, it seems that the premium growth is lower post-ACA than pre-ACA, so it's unlikely that the ACA could be accused of causing increased premium growth. Of course, this is US-wide average, and on a state-by-state basis there may well be significant differences that may or may not be related to the ACA. One thing that is covered on the NCSL page linked above that is interesting: while the premium growth has slowed significantly (about 50% of the growth pre-ACA), health insurance premiums are a higher proportion of employee's wages, and that growth is continuing - because wage growth has not kept pace with inflation post-2008 recession. Employee contributions also may be higher post-recession; many companies reduced their contribution percentage (as my then employer did, for example). Finally, increases in the ACA plans are also commonly overstated. They largely are in line with employer plans or even less. In 2015, premiums were basically flat, decreasing slightly in fact - see the KFF analysis here. 2016 saw a 3.6% by this methodology (see the 2016 analysis). It's very easy to cherrypick examples that are favorable to any interpretation from the data, though; there are such big swings as a result of the different conditions in the marketplaces that it's easy to pick a few that have high swings and claim the ACA has massive premium increases, or pick a few that have low swings and claim it's reducing costs. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Does the rise in ACA premiums affect employer-provided health insurance premiums? ### Answer: Depends on the insurance company itself, as well as the costs of treatments. Imagine an ideal scenario where costs of treatments stayed the same, and that all insurance plans were segregated and pulled from the same pool of funds to pay for treatments. Then employer subsidized health insurance plans would be unaffected by the drama in the ACA plans. Those are the factors to consider, from my understanding. But I wouldn't be surprised if the burdens of accepting people that would previously never have been serviced by these companies has greatly distorted the market as a whole. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: What caused this drop? ### Answer: I'm going to guess that you found this because of a stock screener. This company went through a 1:20 reverse split on June 30, so every 20 shares outstanding became a single share. Where before you had 20 shares worth $100 you now have 1 share worth $100, the value of the company doesn't change because of a split. This company was never trading for $30+ per share. Reverse splits are typical of a floundering company trading on an exchange that has a minimum share price requirement. While reverse splits don't change the value of the company, just the number of shares outstanding and the price per share, no healthy company performs a reverse split. Reverse splits are generally a massive signal to jump ship... The company seems to be trading for $1 right now, why the value fell from a pre-split $1.65 ($33/20) to $1 is anyone's guess; how the company ever got to $1.65 is also anyone's guess. But looking at the most recent 10-Q there are numerous causes for concern: Note 2. Capital Stock On March 6, 2017, the Company issued as compensation for services provided a total of 650,000 common shares with a fair value of $390,000 to a third party. The fair value of the shares was based on the price quoted on the OTC pink sheets on the grant date. this indicates a share price of $0.60 ($390,000/650,000) as of 3/6/2017, just to reinforce that the google price chart doesn't show the true past but a past adjusted for the split Results of Operations The three months ended March 31, 2017 compared to the three months ended March 31, 2016 For the three months ended March 31, 2017 compared to the three months ended March 31, 2016, total revenues were $0 and $0, respectively, and net losses from operations were $414,663 and $26,260, respectively. The net losses were attributable to costs attributable to operating as a public company, in particular, common stock with a valuation of $390,000 that was issued to an investor relations firm in the first quarter of 2017. Going Concern As of March 31, 2017, there is substantial doubt regarding our ability to continue as a going concern as we have not generated sufficient cash flow to fund our proposed business. We have suffered recurring losses from operations since our inception. In addition, we have yet to generate an internal cash flow from our business operations or successfully raised the financing required to develop our proposed business. As a result of these and other factors, our independent auditor has expressed substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. Liquidity and Capital Resources We had no cash as of the date of March 31, 2017. Additionally, since there is no balance sheet in the last 10-Q (another bad sign), the last annual report 10-K has this balance sheet: So the company: So why did the stock value plummet? It's anyones' guess but there is no shortage of ways to justify it. In fact, it's reasonable to ask how is this company still worth $3mm ($1 * 3mm shares outstanding)... ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: What caused this drop? ### Answer: I do not fully understand the transactions involved, but it appears that there was a reverse stock split (20:1) and some legal status change as well on June 29th. This seems to be the cause for the change in valuation of the stock as the dates match the drop. https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/RMSLD/filings ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How do markets “factor in” a future event? ### Answer: At the most fundamental level, every market is comprised of buyers and selling trading securities. These buyers and sellers decide what and how to trade based on the probability of future events, as they see it. That's a simple statement, but an example demonstrates how complicated it can be. Picture a company that's about to announce earnings. Some investors/traders (from here on, "agents") will have purchased the company's stock a while ago, with the expectation that the company will have strong earnings and grow going forward. Other agents will have sold the stock short, bought put options, etc. with the expectation that the company won't do as well in the future. Still others may be unsure about the future of the company, but still expecting a lot of volatility around the earnings announcement, so they'll have bought/sold the stock, options, futures, etc. to take advantage of that volatility. All of these various predictions, expectations, etc. factor into what agents are bidding and asking for the stock, its associated derivatives, and other securities, which in turn determines its price (along with overall economic factors, like the sector's performance, interest rates, etc.) It can be very difficult to determine exactly how markets are factoring in information about an event, though. Take the example in your question. The article states that if market expectations of higher interest rates tightened credit conditions... In this case, lenders could expect higher interest rates in the future, so they may be less willing to lend money now because they expect to earn a higher interest rate in the future. You could also see this reflected in bond prices, because since interest rates are inversely related to bond prices, higher interest rates could decrease the value of bond portfolios. This could lead agents to sell bonds now in order to lock in their profits, while other agents could wait to buy bonds because they expect to be able to purchase bonds with a higher rate in the future. Furthermore, higher interest rates make taking out loans more expensive for individuals and businesses. This potential decline in investment could lead to decreased revenue/profits for businesses, which could in turn cause declines in the stock market. Agents expecting these declines could sell now in order to lock in their profits, buy derivatives to hedge against or ride out possible declines, etc. However, the current low interest rate environment makes it cheaper for businesses to obtain loans, which can in turn drive investment and lead to increases in the stock market. This is one criticism of the easy money/quantitative easing policies of the US Federal Reserve, i.e. the low interest rates are driving a bubble in the stock market. One quick example of how tricky this can be. The usual assumption is that positive economic news, e.g. low unemployment numbers, strong business/residential investment, etc. will lead to price increases in the stock market as more agents see growth in the future and buy accordingly. However, in the US, positive economic news has recently led to declines in the market because agents are worried that positive news will lead the Federal Reserve to taper/stop quantitative easing sooner rather than later, thus ending the low interest rate environment and possibly tampering growth. Summary: In short, markets incorporate information about an event because the buyers and sellers trade securities based on the likelihood of that event, its possible effects, and the behavior of other buyers and sellers as they react to the same information. Information may lead agents to buy and sell in multiple markets, e.g. equity and fixed-income, different types of derivatives, etc. which can in turn affect prices and yields throughout numerous markets. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: In USA, what circumstances (if any) make it illegal for a homeless person to “rent” an address? ### Answer: You owe taxes to the state where you earned the income, and also to the state where you physically live. Most, maybe all, states have laws that let you claim credits for taxes paid to other states so that you're not paying double taxes by living in one state while working in another. Most states have deals with all their neighboring states so that you only have to file taxes in one. For example, I live in Michigan, and Michigan borders Ohio. Lots of people who live near the border live in one state but work in the other. So the two have a deal that anyone who lives in Michigan but works in Ohio just has to file a Michigan tax return and pay Michigan taxes, and anyone who lives in Ohio and works in Michigan just has to pay Ohio taxes. Oh, I should note that these adjacent state deals apply only to employment income, not business income. If you own a business in another state, you'll still have to file taxes in that state. You still should get tax credits in your residence state. In general the fact that you use a server in another state doesn't make you liable for taxes in that state. I understand that New York says that if you work from home and the company headquarters is in New York, you have to pay New York taxes. Maybe there are a few other states who do this. But just because a server is in their state? I've never heard of this. If I order business supplies that are shipped from a warehouse in Arizona, that doesn't make me liable for Arizona income taxes, etc. You are legally a "resident" of the state where you actually live. If you have a home and live in it most of the time, then you are a resident of the state where that home is. A "home" doesn't have to be a house. It could be an apartment, an RV that you live in in a trailer park, a tent, etc. If you don't own any sort of fixed home and you travel around a lot, this could be tricky. You mentioned Oklahoma. Oklahoma defines "resident" as follows: An Oklahoma resident is a person domiciled in this state for the entire tax year. “Domicile” is the place established as a person’s true, fixed, and permanent home. It is the place you intend to return whenever you are away (as on vacation abroad, business assignment, educational leave or military assignment). A domicile, once established, remains until a new one is adopted. (https://www.ok.gov/tax/documents/511NRPkt-14.pdf) I'm not sure that that clears things up for you. You can't just pick a state with low taxes and claim that as your residence. No way is the state where you actually live going to accept that. If you are in an ambiguous situation, like you spend 6 months per year in state A and 6 months in state B and you have no fixed home in either -- maybe you stay at motels or live in your minivan -- you might get away with picking the state with the most favorable tax laws as your residence. But if you spend 7 months in state A and 5 months in state B, state A will almost surely claim you are a resident and owe them taxes. If you regularly wander the country, never spend more than a few days in any one place, and rarely come back to the same place twice, then you have a complicated situation and you probably need to talk to a tax lawyer. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: In USA, what circumstances (if any) make it illegal for a homeless person to “rent” an address? ### Answer: It depends on the rules in the specific places you stay. Specific places being countries or states. Some states may consider pension payments to be taxable income, others may not. Some may consider presence for X days to constitute residency, X days may be 60 days in a calendar year whether or not those days are continuous. It doesn't matter so much where your mailbox or mail handling service is located, it matters: You may owe taxes in more than one place. Some states will allow you to offset other states' taxes against theirs. Some states in the US are really harsh on income taxes. It's my understanding that if you own real estate in New York, all of your income, no matter the source, is taxable income in New York whether or not you were ever in the state that year. Ultimately, you can't just put up your hand and say, "that's my tax domicile so I'm exempt from all your taxes." There is no umbrella US regulation on this topic, the states determine who they consider to be residents and how those residents are to be taxed. While it's possible you may be considered a resident of multiple states and owe income taxes in multiple states, it's equally possible that you won't meet the residency criteria for any state regardless of whether or not that state has an income tax. The issue you face, as addressed in @Jay's answer, Oklahoma will consider you a resident of OK until you have established residency somewhere else. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Can the Philadelphia Center City District Tax be deducted on my Schedule-A? ### Answer: My basic rule of thumb is that if the the bill come from a government office of taxation, and that if you fail to pay the amount they can put a tax lien on the property it is a tax. for you the complication is in Pub530: Assessments for local benefits. You cannot deduct amounts you pay for local benefits that tend to increase the value of your property. Local benefits include the construction of streets, sidewalks, or water and sewer systems. You must add these amounts to the basis of your property. You can, however, deduct assessments (or taxes) for local benefits if they are for maintenance, repair, or interest charges related to those benefits. An example is a charge to repair an existing sidewalk and any interest included in that charge. If only a part of the assessment is for maintenance, repair, or interest charges, you must be able to show the amount of that part to claim the deduction. If you cannot show what part of the assessment is for maintenance, repair, or interest charges, you cannot deduct any of it. An assessment for a local benefit may be listed as an item in your real estate tax bill. If so, use the rules in this section to find how much of it, if any, you can deduct. I have never seen a tax bill that said this amount is for new streets, and the rest i for things the IRS says you can deduct. The issue is that if the Center City tax bill is a separate line or a separate bill then does it count. I would go back to the first line of the quote from Pub 530: You cannot deduct amounts you pay for local benefits that tend to increase the value of your property. Then I would look at the quote from the CCD web site: The Center City District (CCD) is a business improvement district. Our mission is to keep Philadelphia's downtown, called Center City, clean, safe, beautiful and fun. We provide security, cleaning and promotional services that supplement, but do not replace, basic services provided by the City of Philadelphia and the fundamental responsibilities of property owners. CCD also makes physical improvements to the downtown, installing and maintaining lighting, > signs, banners, trees and landscape elements. and later on the same page: CCD directly bills and collects mandatory payments from properties in the district. CCD also receives voluntary contributions from the owners of tax-exempt properties that benefit from our services. The issues is that it is a business improvement district (BID), and you aren't a business: I did find this document from the city of Philadelphia explain how to establish a BID: If the nature of the BID is such that organizers wish to include residential properties within the district and make these properties subject to the assessment, it may make sense to assess these properties at a lower level than a commercial property, both because BID services and benefits are business-focused, and because owner-occupants often cannot treat NID assessments as tax-deductible business expenses, like commercial owners do. Care must be taken to ensure that the difference in commercial and residential assessment rates is equitable, and complies with the requirements of the CEIA. from the same document: Funds for BID programs and services are generated from a special assessment paid by the benefited property owners directly to the organization that manages the BID’s activities. (Note: many leases have a clause that allows property owners to pass the BID assessment on to their tenants.) Because they are authorized by the City of Philadelphia, the assessment levied by the BID becomes a legal obligation of the property owner and failure to pay can result in the filing of a lien. I have seen discussion that some BIDS can accept tax deductible donations. This means if a person itemizes they can deduct the donation. I would then feel comfortable deducting the tax because: If you can't deduct it that would mean the only people who can't deduct it are home owners. So deduct it. (keep in mind I am not a tax professional) ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How does unemployment insurance work? ### Answer: Unemployment insurance provides a temporary safety net to workers who lose their jobs by replacing a portion of their salary for certain periods. Each state administers its own unemployment insurance program so some rules may vary from state to state. To receive unemployment insurance payments, you must have lost your job through no fault of your own. If you quit your job or lost it because of poor performance or another justifiable reason, you are not eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. State unemployment insurance programs require claimants to have worked sufficiently before they can claim benefits. As soon as you apply for unemployment insurance, an agency with the state in which you live will verify that you were a victim of a layoff by contacting your previous employer and making sure you lost your job due to lack of work and not an action within your control. After the state verifies you were indeed the victim of a layoff, your weekly payment is calculated. Your payment will be a percentage of what you made in your previous job, generally between 20 percent and 50 percent, depending on your state. Unemployment insurance replaces only a portion of your previous pay because it is intended to pay only for the essentials of living such as food and utilities until you find new employment. Before you begin receiving benefits, you must complete a waiting period of typically one or two weeks. If you find a new job during this period, you will not be eligible for unemployment benefits, even if the job does not pay you as much as your previous job. After the waiting period, you will begin to receive your weekly payments. Employers pay for unemployment insurance through payroll taxes. So, while employees' work and earnings history are important to funding their unemployment benefits, the money does not come from their pay. Employer unemployment insurance contributions depend on several factors, including how many former employees have received benefits. Employers pay taxes on an employee's base wages, which vary by state. California, for example taxes employers on the first $7,000 of an employee's annual earnings, while neighboring Oregon taxes up to $32,000 of wages. Employers must set aside funds each payroll period and then report taxes and pay their states quarterly. States have several categories of tax rates they charge employers. New businesses and those first adding employees pay the "new rate," which is typically lower and geared toward small businesses. Established businesses who haven't paid their taxes recently or properly are usually assessed the "standard rate" --- the highest possible tax rate, which in 2010 ranged from 5.4 percent in several states including Georgia, Hawaii and Alaska to 13.56 percent in Pennsylvania. Businesses in good standing may receive discounts under the "experienced rate." Depending on the number of employees a business has and how many former employees have claimed unemployment, states can give sizable rate reductions. The fewer claims, the lower the rate a business pays in unemployment insurance taxes. As a result of the economic crisis legislation has been passed to extend Unemployment benefits. Regular unemployment benefits are paid for a maximum of 26 weeks in most states. However, additional weeks of extended unemployment benefits are available during times of high unemployment. The unemployment extension legislation passed by Congress in February 2012 changed the way the tiers of Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) are structured. A tier of unemployment is an extension of a certain amount of weeks of unemployment benefits. There are currently four tiers of unemployment benefits. Each tier provides extra weeks of unemployment in addition to basic state unemployment benefits. Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) Tiers June - August 2012: Source and further information can be found here - Unemployment Tiers - About.com Sources: Unemployment Insurance(UI) - US Dept. of Labor How Does Unemployment Insurance Work? - eHow Percentage of Pay That Goes to Unemployment Insurance - eHow Additional Info: You can file for UI over the internet here are some useful resources. OWS Links State Unemployment Offices - About.com How to Apply for Unemployment Over the Internet - eHow ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How to secure one's effort when working on a contract? ### Answer: Anytime you do work without any payment until the work is complete, you are effectively extending credit to the party receiving your service. How much credit you are willing to extend will vary greatly, depending on the amount and the trustworthiness of the party. For example, if you are charging $50 for something, you probably won't bother to collect money upfront, whereas if you are charging $5,000 you probably would collect some upfront. But if the party you are working for is a large financially sound company, the number may be even much higher than $5K as you can trust you will be paid. Obviously there are many factors that go into how much credit you are willing to extend to your customer. (This is why credit reports exist for banks to determine how much credit to extend to you.) As for the specific case you are asking about, which may be classified as a decent amount of work for a small business, I would default to having a written scope of work, a place in the document for both parties to sign, and specify 50% upfront payment and 50% payment at completion. When you receive the signed document and the upfront payment (and possibly even after the check clears), you begin work. I would call this my "default contract" and adjust according to your needs depending on the size of the job and the trustworthiness of the customer. As for your question about how to deposit the check, that depends on what type of entity you are. If you are a sole proprietor you should ask for the checks to be made out to you. If you are a business then the checks should be made out to your business name. You don't need "in trust" or anything similar because your customer, after paying the upfront fee, must trust that you will do the work you promise to do, just like you have to trust that after completing the work you will receive the final payment. This is the reason the default is 50% before and after. Both parties are risking (roughly) the same amount. Tip: having done the "default" contract many times in my career, both as a sole proprietor and a business owner, I can assure you there is a big difference between a potential customer agreeing to something in advance, and actually writing a check. The upfront payment definitely helps weed out those that were never going to end up paying you, even if their intentions were good. Tip 2: be as specific as possible as to what the scope of work will include. If you don't, particularly with software, they'll be adding feature after feature and expecting it to be "included". ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How to secure one's effort when working on a contract? ### Answer: I don't think you need to bother with trust accounts. The point of a trust account is holding funds that aren't yours yet. You take a retainer fee that you have yet to earn. As you work, you bill your hourly rate, your client signs off and you take possession of the funds. You're going to work a project, you'll take a partial payment as a deposit and partial payment upon completion. But this is a payment to you, not money transferred to you to hold until you earn it at a later date. Your contract can specify remedies for missing a deadline, or any other thing that could happen. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Is accident insurance worth it for my kids who play sports ### Answer: The general answer to any "is it worth it" insurance question is "no," because the insurance company is making a profit on the insurance.* To decide if you want the insurance, you need to figure out how much you can afford to pay if something happens, how much they cover, and how badly you want to transfer your risk to them. If you won't have trouble coming up with the $4000 deductible should you need to, then don't get this extra insurance. * I did not mean to imply that insurance is always a bad idea or that insurance companies are cheating their customers. Please let me explain further. When you buy any product from a business, that business is making a profit. And there is nothing wrong with that at all. They are providing a service and should be compensated for their efforts. Insurance companies also provide a service, but unlike other types of businesses, their product is monetary. You pay them money now, and they might pay you money later. If they pay you more money then you spent, you came out ahead, and if you spend more money then they give you, it was a loss for you. In order for the insurance company to make a profit, they need to bring in more money than they pay out. In fact, they need to bring in a lot more money then they pay out, because in addition to their profit, they have all the overhead of running a business. As a result, on average, you will come out behind when you purchase insurance. This means that when you are on the fence about whether or not to purchase any insurance product, the default choice should be "no." On average, you are financially better off without insurance. Now, that doesn't mean you should never buy insurance. As mentioned by commenter @xiaomy, insurance companies spread risk across all of their customers. If I am in a situation where I have a risk of financial ruin in a certain circumstance, I can eliminate that risk by purchasing insurance. For example, I have term life insurance, because if I were to pass away, it would be financially catastrophic for my family. (I'm hoping that the insurance company makes 100% profit on that deal!) I also continue to buy expensive health insurance because an unexpected medical event would be financially devastating. However, I always decline the extended warranty when I buy a $300 appliance, because I don't have any trouble coming up with another $300 in the unlikely event that it breaks, and I would rather keep the money than contribute to the profits of an insurance company unnecessarily. In my original answer above, I pointed out how you would determine whether or not to purchase this particular insurance product. This product pays out a bunch of relatively small amounts for certain events, up to a limit of $4000. Would this $4000 be hard for you to come up with if you needed to? If so, get the insurance. But if you are like me and have an emergency fund in place to handle things like this, then you are financially better off declining this policy. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: In what ways can a public company ask for money? ### Answer: There are many different methods for a corporation to get money, but they mostly fall into three categories: earnings, debt and equity. Earnings would be just the corporation's accumulation of cash due to the operation of its business. Perhaps if cash was needed for a particular reason immediately, a business may consider selling a division or group of assets to another party, and using the proceeds for a different part of the business. Debt is money that (to put it simply) the corporation legally must repay to the lender, likely with periodic interest payments. Apart from the interest payments (if any) and the principal (original amount leant), the lender has no additional rights to the value of the company. There are, basically, 2 types of corporate debt: bank debt, and bonds. Bank debt is just the corporation taking on a loan from a bank. Bonds are offered to the public - ie: you could potentially buy a "Tesla Bond", where you give Tesla $1k, and they give you a stated interest rate over time, and principal repayments according to a schedule. Which type of debt a corporation uses will depend mostly on the high cost of offering a public bond, the relationships with current banks, and the interest rates the corporation thinks it can get from either method. Equity [or, shares] is money that the corporation (to put it simply) likely does not have a legal obligation to repay, until the corporation is liquidated (sold at the end of its life) and all debt has already been repaid. But when the corporation is liquidated, the shareholders have a legal right to the entire value of the company, after those debts have been paid. So equity holders have higher risk than debt holders, but they also can share in higher reward. That is why stock prices are so volatile - the value of each share fluctuates based on the perceived value of the entire company. Some equity may be offered with specific rules about dividend payments - maybe they are required [a 'preferred' share likely has a stated dividend rate almost like a bond, but also likely has a limited value it can ever receive back from the corporation], maybe they are at the discretion of the board of directors, maybe they will never happen. There are 2 broad ways for a corporation to get money from equity: a private offering, or a public offering. A private offering could be a small mom and pop store asking their neighbors to invest 5k so they can repair their business's roof, or it could be an 'Angel Investor' [think Shark Tank] contributing significant value and maybe even taking control of the company. Perhaps shares would be offered to all current shareholders first. A public offering would be one where shares would be offered up to the public on the stock exchange, so that anyone could subscribe to them. Why a corporation would use any of these different methods depends on the price it feels it could get from them, and also perhaps whether there are benefits to having different shareholders involved in the business [ie: an Angel investor would likely be involved in the business to protect his/her investment, and that leadership may be what the corporation actually needs, as much or more than money]. Whether a corporation chooses to gain cash from earnings, debt, or equity depends on many factors, including but not limited to: (1) what assets / earnings potential it currently has; (2) the cost of acquiring the cash [ie: the high cost of undergoing a public offering vs the lower cost of increasing a bank loan]; and (3) the ongoing costs of that cash to both the corporation and ultimately the other shareholders - ie: a 3% interest rate on debt vs a 6% dividend rate on preferred shares vs a 5% dividend rate on common shares [which would also share in the net value of the company with the other current shareholders]. In summary: Earnings would be generally preferred, but if the company needs cash immediately, that may not be suitable. Debt is generally cheap to acquire and interest rates are generally lower than required dividend rates. Equity is often expensive to acquire and maintain [either through dividend payments or by reduction of net value attributable to other current shareholders], but may be required if a new venture is risky. ie: a bank/bondholder may not want to lend money for a new tech idea because it is too risky to just get interest from - they want access to the potential earnings as well, through equity. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why is it not a requirement for companies to pay dividends? ### Answer: The shareholders have a claim on the profits, but they may prefer that claim to be exercised in ways other than dividend payments. For example, they may want the company to invest all of its profits in growth, or they may want it to buy back shares to increase the value of the remaining shares, especially since dividends are generally taxed as income while an increase in the share price is generally taxed as a capital gain, and capital gains are often taxed at a lower rate than income. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why is it not a requirement for companies to pay dividends? ### Answer: Cash flow is needed for expansion, either to increase manufacturing capacity or to expand the workforce. Other times companies use it to purchase other companies. Microsoft and Google have both used their cash or stocks to purchase companies. Examples by Google include YouTube, Keyhole (Google Earth), and now part of Motorola to expand into Phones. If you are investing for the future, you don't want a lot of dividends. They do bring tax issues. That is not a big problem if you are investing in an IRA or 401K. It is an issue if the non-tax-defered mutual fund distributes those dividends via the 1099, forcing you to address it on your taxes each year. Some investors do like dividends, but they are looking for their investments to generate cash. Who would require it? Would it be an SEC requirement? Even more government paperwork for companies. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why is it not a requirement for companies to pay dividends? ### Answer: This answer will expand a bit on the theory. :) A company, as an entity, represents a pile of value. Some of that is business value (the revenue stream from their products) and some of that is assets (real estate, manufacturing equipment, a patent portfolio, etc). One of those assets is cash. If you own a share in the company, you own a share of all those assets, including the cash. In a theoretical sense, it doesn't really matter whether the company holds the cash instead of you. If the company adds an extra $1 billion to its assets, then people who buy and sell the company will think "hey, there's an extra $1 billion of cash in that company; I should be willing to pay $1 billion / shares outstanding more per share to own it than I would otherwise." Granted, you may ultimately want to turn your ownership into cash, but you can do that by selling your shares to someone else. From a practical standpoint, though, the company doesn't benefit from holding that cash for a long time. Cash doesn't do much except sit in bank accounts and earn pathetically small amounts of interest, and if you wanted pathetic amounts of interests from your cash you wouldn't be owning shares in a company, you'd have it in a bank account yourself. Really, the company should do something with their cash. Usually that means investing it in their own business, to grow and expand that business, or to enhance profitability. Sometimes they may also purchase other companies, if they think they can turn a profit from the purchase. Sometimes there aren't a lot of good options for what to do with that money. In that case, the company should say, "I can't effectively use this money in a way which will grow my business. You should go and invest it yourself, in whatever sort of business you think makes sense." That's when they pay a dividend. You'll see that a lot of the really big global companies are the ones paying dividends - places like Coca-Cola or Exxon-Mobil or what-have-you. They just can't put all their cash to good use, even after their growth plans. Many people who get dividends will invest them in the stock market again - possibly purchasing shares of the same company from someone else, or possibly purchasing shares of another company. It doesn't usually make a lot of sense for the company to invest in the stock market themselves, though. Investment expertise isn't really something most companies are known for, and because a company has multiple owners they may have differing investment needs and risk tolerance. For instance, if I had a bunch of money from the stock market I'd put it in some sort of growth stock because I'm twenty-something with a lot of savings and years to go before retirement. If I were close to retirement, though, I would want it in a more stable stock, or even in bonds. If I were retired I might even spend it directly. So the company should let all its owners choose, unless they have a good business reason not to. Sometimes companies will do share buy-backs instead of dividends, which pays money to people selling the company stock. The remaining owners benefit by reducing the number of shares outstanding, so they own more of what's left. They should only do this if they think the stock is at a fair price, or below a fair price, for the company: otherwise the remaining owners are essentially giving away cash. (This actually happens distressingly often.) On the other hand, if the company's stock is depressed but it subsequently does better than the rest of the market, then it is a very good investment. The one nice thing about share buy-backs in general is that they don't have any immediate tax implications for the company's owners: they simply own a stock which is now more valuable, and can sell it (and pay taxes on that sale) whenever they choose. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why is it not a requirement for companies to pay dividends? ### Answer: You have plenty of good answers, but I want to add something that might help you grow your intuition on stocks. There are a lot of differences between the example I am going to give and how the stock market actually runs, but the basic concepts are the same. Lets say your friend asks you if he can borrow some money to start up a company, in exchange you will have some ownership in this company. You have essentially just bought yourself some stock. Now as your friend starts to grow, he is doing well, but he needs more cash to buy assets in order to grow the company more. He is forced with an option, either give you some of the profits, or buy these assets sooner. You decide you don't really need the money right now, and think he can do a lot better with spending the money to buy stuff. This is essentially the same as a company electing to not pay dividends, but instead invest into the future. You as a stock holder are fine with it since you know the money is going toward investing in the future. Even if you never get paid a dividend, as a company grows, you can then turn around and sell the stock to someone else for more money then you gave originally. Of course you always take the risk of having the company failing and loosing some if not all of your investment, but that is just the risk of the market. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: MasterCard won't disclose who leaked my credit card details ### Answer: As indicated in comments, this is common practice in the US as well as EU. For example, in this Fox Business article, a user had basically the same experience: their card was replaced but without the specific merchant being disclosed. When the reporter contacted Visa, they were told: "We also believe that the public interest is best served by quickly notifying financial institutions with the information necessary to protect themselves and their cardholders from fraud losses. Even a slight delay in notification to financial institutions could be costly,” the spokesperson said in an e-mail statement. “Visa works with the breached entity to collect the necessary information and provides payment card issuers with the affected account numbers so they can take steps to protect consumers through independent fraud monitoring, and if needed, reissuing cards. The most critical information needed is the affected accounts, which Visa works to provide as quickly as possible.” What they're not saying, of course, is that it's in Visa's best interests that merchants let Visa know right away when a leak occurs, without having to think about whether it's going to screw that merchant over in the press. If the merchant has to consider PR, they may not let the networks know in as timely of a fashion - they may at least wait until they've verified the issue in more detail, or even wait until they've found who to pin it on so they don't get blamed. But beyond that, the point is that it's easier for the network (Visa/Mastercard/etc.) to have a system that's just a list of card numbers to submit to the bank for re-issuing; nobody there really cares which merchant was at fault, they just want to re-issue the cards quickly. Letting you know who's at fault is separate. There's little reason for the issuing bank to ever know; you should find out from the merchant themselves or from the network (and in my experience, usually the former). Eventually you may well find out - the article suggest that: [T]he situation is common, but there is some good news: consumers do in many cases find out the source of the breach. But of course doesn't go into detail about numbers. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: MasterCard won't disclose who leaked my credit card details ### Answer: I found a german article describing the legal situation in Germany. To summarize As outlined by the many possible reasons in the other answer, it is unclear from the information I have, whether condition 1 holds. Also condition 2 may not hold since the credit card was frozen. I suppose this makes a good argument to MasterCard and my bank, but I also suspect they will not care unless it comes with a attorney letterhead. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: MasterCard won't disclose who leaked my credit card details ### Answer: Others have already commented on the impact of anything which dissuades merchants from raising possible breaches, so I won't dwell on that. Maybe we need stronger legislation, maybe we don't, but it doesn't change today's answer. Often it works the other way around to what you might expect - rather than the merchant noticing and notifying Visa/MC/others, Visa/MC/others spot patterns of suspicious activity (example 1). I don't have any data on the relative numbers of who is being notified/notifying between merchants and payment processors, but at the point when your card is identified as compromised there's no reason to suppose that an individual merchant in the traditional sense has been compromised, let alone identified. In fact because there's a fast moving investigation it could even be a false alarm that led to your card getting cancelled. Conversely it could be a hugely complex multinational investigation which would be jeopardised. It's simply not safe to assume that simply "brand X" has been compromised, therefore everything "brand X" knows about you is also compromised: Furthermore there's no reason to assume the merchant has even admitted to, or discovered the root cause. MC/Visa/Banks, at the point at which they're cancelling cards simply can't say (at least not in a way that might expensively backfire involving lots of lawyers) because the standard of proof needed to go on record blaming someone is simply not yet met. So: yes it's common that you aren't told anything for all of the above reasons. And of course if you really want to find out more you may have some success with your local data protection legislation and formally make a subject access request (or local equivalent) to see what that brings back. Be sure to do it in writing, to the official address of both mastercard and your bank. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: MasterCard won't disclose who leaked my credit card details ### Answer: File a John Doe lawsuit, "plaintiff to be determined", and then subpoena the relevant information from Mastercard. John Doe doesn't countersue, so you're pretty safe doing this. But it probably won't work. Mastercard would quash your subpoena. They will claim that you lack standing to sue anyone because you did not take a loss (which is a fair point). They are after the people doing the hacking, and the security gaps which make the hacking possible. And how those gaps arise among businesses just trying to do their best. It's a hard problem. And I've done the abuse wars professionally. OpSec is a big deal. You simply cannot reveal your methods or even much of your findings, because that will expose too much of your detection method. The ugly fact is, the bad guys are not that far from winning, and catching them depends on them unwisely using the same known techniques over and over. When you get a truly novel technique, it costs a fortune in engineering time to unravel what they did and build defenses against it. If maybe 1% of attacks are this, it is manageable, but if it were 10%, you simply cannot staff an enforcement arm big enough - the trained staff don't exist to hire (unless you steal them from Visa, Amex, etc.) So as much as you'd like to tell the public, believe me, I'd like to get some credit for what I've done -- they just can't say much or they educate the bad guys, and then have a much tougher problem later. Sorry! I know how frustrating it is! The credit card companies hammered out PCI-DSS (Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards). This is a basic set of security rules and practices which should make hacking unlikely. Compliance is achievable (not easy), and if you do it, you're off the hook. That is one way Amy can be entirely not at fault. Example deleted for length, but as a small business, you just can't be a PCI security expert. You rely on the commitments of others to do a good job, like your bank and merchant account salesman. There are so many ways this can go wrong that just aren't your fault. As to the notion of saying "it affected Amy's customers but it was Doofus the contractor's fault", that doesn't work, the Internet lynch mob won't hear the details and will kill Amy's business. Then she's suing Mastercard for false light, a type of defamtion there the facts are true but are framed falsely. And defamation has much more serious consequences in Europe. Anyway, even a business not at fault has to pay for a PCI-DSS audit. A business at fault has lots more problems, at the very least paying $50-90 per customer to replace their cards. The simple fact is 80% of businesses in this situation go bankrupt at this point. Usually fraudsters make automated attacks using scripts they got from others. Only a few dozen attacks (on sites) succeed, and then they use other scripts to intercept payment data, which is all they want. They are cookie cutter scripts, and aren't customized for each site, and can't go after whatever personal data is particular to that site. So in most cases all they get is payment data. It's also likely that primary data, like a cloud drive, photo collection or medical records, are kept in completely separate systems with separate security, unlikely to hack both at once even if the hacker is willing to put lots and lots of engineering effort into it. Most hackers are script kiddies, able to run scripts others provided but unable to hack on their own. So it's likely that "none was leaked" is the reason they didn't give notification of private information leakage. Lastly, they can't get what you didn't upload. Site hacking is a well known phenomenon. A person who is concerned with privacy is cautious to not put things online that are too risky. It's also possible that this is blind guesswork on the part of Visa/MC, and they haven't positively identified any particular merchant, but are replacing your cards out of an abundance of caution. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: What steps are required to transfer real estate into a LLC? ### Answer: especially considering it has a mortgage on it (technically a home equity loan on my primary residence). I'm not following. Does it have a mortgage on it, or your primary residence (a different property) was used as a security for the loan? If it is HELOC from a different property - then it is really your business what to do with it. You can spend it all on casinos in Vegas for all that the bank cares. Is this a complicated transaction? Any gotchas I should be aware of before embarking on it? Obviously you should talk to an attorney and a tax adviser. But here's my two cents: Don't fall for the "incorporate in Nevada/Delaware/Wyoming/Some other lie" trap. You must register in the State where you live, and in the State where the property is. Incorporating in any other State will just add complexity and costs, and will not save you anything whatsoever. 2.1 State Taxes - some States tax LLCs. For example, in California you'll pay at least $800 a year just for the right of doing business. If you live in California or the property is in California - you will pay this if you decide to set up an LLC. 2.2 Income taxes - make sure to not elect to tax your LLC as a corporation. The default for LLC is "disregarded" status and it will be taxed for income tax purposes as your person. I.e.: IRS doesn't care and doesn't know about it (and most States, as well). If you actively select to tax it as a corporation (there's such an option) - it will cost you very dearly. So don't, and if someone suggest such a thing to you - run away from that person as fast as you can. Mortgages - it is very hard to get a mortgage when the property is under the LLC. If you already have a mortgage on that property (the property is the one securing the loan) - it may get called once you transfer it into LLC, since from bank's perspective that would be transferring ownership. Local taxes - transferring into LLC may trigger a new tax assessment. If you just bought the property - that will probably not matter much. If it appreciated - you may get hit with higher property taxes. There are also many little things - once you're a LLC and not individual you'll have to open a business bank account, will probably need a new insurance policy, etc etc. These don't add much to costs and are more of an occasional nuisance. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Do rental car agencies sell their cars at a time when it is risky for the purchaser? ### Answer: My mother worked for one of the major American car rental companies. She talked about this topic with me and my answer will summarize the talk. Does the fact that they sell the car mean during this time suggest that they know the car's cost of further maintenance or other costs will be higher? Or is there another reason they sell at this time which, has a calculated advantage to them, but which is less than idea statistically for me, the purchaser? There is much more to the price equation. A premium rental car company (one that only rents fairly new, nice cars) has a certain image to maintain to protect their perceived value. A new-ist car also, besides the point of the image of the general company, commands a better rental price. Many Web sites and articles warn against buying former rental cars, because people renting these cars often mistreat them. This is a bad argument you've read. If former rental cars are in bad shape, the price will reflect that. If they are priced the same for the same miles ridden, they have equivalent wear and tear. In other words, the relative price of the car determines whether rental cars are more heavily worn not random people's opinions on the internet. People on the internet are mostly wrong. Irony intended. From the single company I have as reference, I also don't see that as relevant. There are company and governmental regulations to keep maintenance up. I clean my car once a year. Change the oil twice. Replace my wipers every eighteen months. And so forth. The maintenance cycles required for rental cars may (and this is just speculation) negate the gradual extra degradation that drivers may have on rental cars. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Do rental car agencies sell their cars at a time when it is risky for the purchaser? ### Answer: Many Web sites and articles warn against buying former rental cars, because people renting these cars often mistreat them. Rental cars are typically driven by people over 25, these are typically people with some financial means (air travel, credit card). Additionally, rental cars are subject to frequent inspection and likely to be on tighter maintenance schedules than many owners would keep. So while some people may drive a rental harder than they would their own car, it's not typical, and not likely to result in some hidden damage that makes a rental less desirable (all else being equal) on the used-car market. Does the fact that they sell the car mean during this time suggest that they know the car's cost of further maintenance or other costs will be higher? Or is there another reason they sell at this time which, has a calculated advantage to them, but which is less than idea statistically for me, the purchaser? Rental companies buy at incredible volumes, as such, some manufacturers have programs where they will buy back used cars from the rental company at a set price and/or time. Other incentives are guaranteed depreciation, wherein the manufacturer will make up the difference if the used vehicle doesn't sell for a set percentage of it's purchase price after a set amount of time. Outside of these incentive programs, rental companies also get substantial volume discounts, and they typically are buying base models which hold value better than their higher-trim counterparts (according to KBB market analyst). So the conventional wisdom about depreciation doesn't really apply. The timing of their sales is primarily based on their purchasing arrangements and their desire to keep an up to date fleet, not on projected maintenance/repair costs. The best you can do with any used-car purchase is to test-drive, get a pre-purchase inspection, and review whatever history is available. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Do rental car agencies sell their cars at a time when it is risky for the purchaser? ### Answer: Many Web sites and articles warn against buying former rental cars, because people renting these cars often mistreat them. Many of those are also written by unqualified individuals for publication on blog farms and encourage all sorts of odious financial practices. That's not even considering the interests of who is paying to advertise on said blogs-- I'm sure their interests align with making sure you always pay top dollar for a new car. Because those icky used ones are so mistreated! Never trust financial advice published on the internet (or in the media, for that matter). Edit: One caveat on further thought-- never, never buy used vehicles from government auctions (impounds, asset seizures, old police cars, etc). Anybody irresponsible enough to go to jail or abandon their car long enough to lose their assets likely isn't a responsible owner of such, and cops and crooks alike do absolutely beat the snot out of police cars. When it comes to government-owned vehicles (police cars, schoolbuses) municipal governments are notoriously stingy and will squeeze every last minute of use out of them before putting them on the market. If you're buying a government vehicle, assume it's being sold because it has intractable problems. But from a financial point of view, I notice that rental agencies sell cars within the first two years, during the time when they depreciate the most. Bingo. I figure many large rental companies will have mathematicians who calculate the best time to sell. Does the fact that they sell the car mean during this time suggest that they know the car's cost of further maintenance or other costs will be higher? Or is there another reason they sell at this time which, has a calculated advantage to them, but which is less than idea statistically for me, the purchaser? It doesn't take a PhD to realize it's bad for business if your model revolves around renting out 1970s rustbuckets that run the risk of breaking down and leaving customers stranded in inopportune or dangerous places. Uhaul in particular has a terrible reputation for this, and it shows in the condition of their trucks-- relics of the 90s, all of them. Uber won't let you drive for them if your car is older than 7-10 years for the same reasons. Yes, as a car ages, the chance of having to make repairs increases. Rental agencies are in the business of renting vehicles, not running service centers and garages. It's more aligned with their core business model to just dispose of cars once they've squeezed the most reliable years out of them and amortize the vehicles' depreciation across the tax deductions and fleet pricing they enjoy when buying new ones. This gets them out of the service game and lets them focus on their core business-- procurement and rental. There's no calculated "time-to-lemon" that they're trying to skirt here; they're just trying to avoid having to make any repairs whatsoever. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Do rental car agencies sell their cars at a time when it is risky for the purchaser? ### Answer: I've been told by staff in my local car hire agency that they get such big discounts that they actually make money selling the cars, so they replace all their cars every six months (in the UK the number plate indicates when the car was registered, in six month periods). This suits the manufacturers, because it means they can offer a lower-cost product to price sensitive customers, while charging more to people who want something brand new. For example, you could buy a brand new Fiesta for £14,000 or a 6 month old version of the same car with a few thousand miles on the clock for £12,000. This means if you only have £12,000 then you can afford to buy a nearly new Fiesta, but if you can afford a bit more then Ford will happily take that off you for a brand new Fiesta. Ford sell an extra car, and if the car hire company only paid £11,000 then they make some profit too. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Do rental car agencies sell their cars at a time when it is risky for the purchaser? ### Answer: The rental industry is seasonal. They purchase additional inventory (vehicles) for their busy seasons and sell the extra inventory afterwards. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Do rental car agencies sell their cars at a time when it is risky for the purchaser? ### Answer: A premium car rental agency will sell a car which is working very well and quite far from the verge of breaking apart. They don't want to take the risk that one of their premium customers paying premium rates receives a worn-looking car which runs less than absolutely perfect (or even breaks down). They need to keep up their premium reputation. These premium agency also have a major marketing impact for the car industry. That's probably the main reason why they receive such massive discounts (see thelem's post). Obviously, the Mercedes Benz AMG Edition rental car will have a lasting impression on the driver (and the people not renting it, but seeing the boastful ads of the car rental company). So both the car industry and the rental company want this lasting impression to be a perfect one. A holiday car rental agency may have much lower standards. They often don't have recurring customers. They don't rent premium cars to premium customers but cheap cars to cheap customers.They don't receive the discounts the premium agencies receive. And they will milk their car to the max. You will notice that they windows fall out of the car when you bang the door shut. You will find that opening the door will be more difficult than breaking into the car. The seats may be stained - at least in the spots where some of the upholsters is still present. On the plus side, if you are lucky, the heating still works. On the minus side, you might not be able to turn it off. Water might leak into the car when it's raining, but that's not much of a problem as it will drain out through the holes in the bottom. No fear that water might rush in through these holes when driving though a puddle - the engine will not start during humid weather, so that's a non-issue. In any case, car rental customer might have mistreated the car. The engine has most probably not been run in. However, this appears to be less than an issue with modern car than it has been in the past. And very very few rental car drivers think that they really have to absolutely emulate Michael Schumacher just because they drive a car which is not their own. And anyway, that is a risk you take with about any used car. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Do rental car agencies sell their cars at a time when it is risky for the purchaser? ### Answer: Every car model/type has a know interval when things need maintenance or replacement. This info comes mainly from the manufacturer and the rental companies use these info to determine how long and at what rate a car should be rented (I mean in total, not rented to an individual) This is easiest calculated with a long term rental (3, or 4 years time. Leasing business) But is also used for short term rental. There is a point in time were a car gets to have more maintenance and replacements then before. The rental company will always try to sell the car just before big replacements or maintenance are necessary. Of course your local mechanic can also now when those big 'events' need to take place. So he can know what to expect the next kms. I'm talking about foreseen replacements and maintenance (like every x km replace drive belt, replace oil ... I'm not referring to the exceptionals. These latter are the risk the rental companies take during the rental period. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How Should I Go About Buying a Car? (College Student) ### Answer: So you want to buy a car but have no money saved up.... That's going to be hard!! I'd suggest you get a part-time job, save up and buy a used car. Even with the minimum wage pay in the U.S., if you are in the U.S., you could save up and buy a car in less than a month. This route would be the quickest way for you to get a car but it would also teach you the responsibility of having one since it appears you have never owned a car before. Now the car will most definitely not be fancy or look like the cars that your peer's parents bought but at least it will get you from point A to point B. I'd look on Craigslist or your local neighborhood for cars that have not moved in a while or have for sale signs. Bring a mechanically inclined friend with you and contact the owner and explain them your situation. There are nice people out there that would give you deep discounts based on the fact that you are a student trying to get by. Now you have to get registration and insurance. There are many insurance companies that give discounts to students as well who have good GPAs and driving records. If you happen to get a car for a good deal, take good car of it. Once you graduate and further your career, you can resell it for a profit. I also would not suggest you get any loans for a car given your situation. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Opening American credit cards while residing in the UK ### Answer: To build a US credit record, you need a Social Security Number (SSN), which is now not available for most non-residents. An alternative is an ITIN number, which is now available to non-residents only if they have US income giving a reason to file a US tax return (do you really want to get into all that...). Assuming you did have a reason to get a ITIN (one reason would be if you sold some ebooks via Amazon US, and need a withholding refund under the tax treaty), then recent reports on Flyertalk give mixed results on whether it's possible to get a credit card with an ITIN, and whether that would build a credit record. It does sound possible in some cases. A credit record in any other country would not help. You would certainly need a US address, and banks are increasingly asking for a physical address, rather than just a mailbox. Regardless, building this history would be of limited benefit to you if you later became a US resident, at that point you would be eligible for a new SSN (different from the ITIN) and have to largely start again. If getting a card is the aim, rather than the credit record, you may find some banks that will offer a secured card (or a debit card), to non-residents, especially in areas with lots of Canadian visitors (border, Florida, Arizona). You'd find it a lot easier with a US address though, and you'd need to shop around a lot of banks in person until you find one with the right rules. Most will simply avoid anyone without an SSN. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Opening American credit cards while residing in the UK ### Answer: Go to the states on vacation. Get a virtual (or friend's) address. Get an ITIN from the IRS. Open a bank account. Get a secured credit card on your next trip from Capital One – add as much money as you can afford. One year later, you should have a decent credit score. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Opening American credit cards while residing in the UK ### Answer: nan ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: What dictates the costs of creating an options contract? (Commissions breakdown) ### Answer: I'm not positive my answer is complete, but from information on my broker's website, the following fees apply to a US option trade (which I assume you're concerned with given fee in dollars and the mention of the Options Clearing Corporation): They have more detail for other countries -- see https://www.interactivebrokers.co.uk/en/index.php?f=commission&p=options1 for North America. Use the sub-menu near the top of the page to pick Europe or Asia. The brokerage-charged commission for this broker is as low as $0.25 per contract with a $1.00 minimum. Though I've been charged less than $1 to STO an options position, as well as less than $1 to BTC an options position, so not sure about that minimum. Regarding what I read as your overall underlying question (why are option fees so high), in my research this broker has one of the cheapest commission rates on options I've ever seen. When I participate in certain discussions, I'm routinely told that these fees are unbelievable and that $5.95, $7.95, or even $9.95 are considered low fees. I've heard this so much, and discussed commissions with enough people who've refused to switch brokers, that I conclude there just isn't enough competition to drive prices lower. If most people won't switch brokers to go from $9.95 to $1 per trade, there simply isn't a reason to lower rates. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Smart to buy a house in college? ### Answer: If you don't plan to stay in it, it is never good money to try to buy a house in a bad neighborhood. The question you want to be asking is probably "Is it smart to buy this piece of real estate," not "is it smart to buy a house in college." In this case, it's probably not smart because you won't actually have revenue from the property (you'll break even compared to renting), you may face some expensive repairs (water heater or other appliances going out, etc.), and you may find that your startup costs in things like lawn mowers, etc. is not worth the hassle (or cost of lawn service if you have someone else do it.) On top of that, can you get a loan with your proven income and assets? Don't forget to factor the cost of selling the house again into it -- and how long can you leave it on the market after you move out if it doesn't sell without going bankrupt yourself? In my opinion, it'd be a giant albatross around your neck. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Smart to buy a house in college? ### Answer: Of course, I know nothing about real estate or owning a home. I would love to hear people's thoughts on why this would or would not be a good idea. Are there any costs I am neglecting? I want the house to be primarily an investment. Is there any reason that it would be a poor investment? I live and work in a college town, but not your college town. You, like many students convinced to buy, are missing a great many costs. There are benefits of course. There's a healthy supply of renters, and you get to live right next to campus. But the stuff next to campus tends to be the oldest, and therefore most repair prone, property around, which is where the 'bad neighborhood' vibe comes from. Futhermore, a lot of the value of your property would be riding on government policy. Defunding unis could involve drastic cuts to their size in the near future, and student loan reform could backfire and become even less available. Even city politics comes into play: when property developers lobby city council to rezone your neighborhood for apartments, you could end up either surrounded with cheaper units or possibly eminent domain'd. I've seen both happen in my college town. If you refuse to sell you could find yourself facing an oddly high number of rental inspections, for example. So on to the general advice: Firstly, real estate in general doesn't reliably increase in value, at best it tends to track inflation. Most of the 'flipping' and such you saw over the past decade was a prolonged bubble, which is slowly and reliably tanking. Beyond that, property taxes, insurance, PMI and repairs need to be factored in, as well as income tax from your renters. And, if you leave the home and continue to rent it out, it's not a owner-occupied property anymore, which is part of the agreement you sign and determines your interest rate. There's also risks. If one of your buddies loses their job, wrecks their car, or loses financial aid, you may find yourself having to eat the loss or evict a good friend. Or if they injure themselves (just for an example: alcohol poisoning), it could land on your homeowners insurance. Or maybe the plumbing breaks and you're out an expensive repair. Finally, there are significant costs to transacting in real estate. You can expect to pay like 5-6 percent of the price of the home to the agents, and various fees to inspections. It will be exceedingly difficult to recoup the cost of that transaction before you graduate. You'll also be anchored into managing this asset when you could be pursuing career opportunities elsewhere in the nation. Take a quick look at three houses you would consider buying and see how long they've been on the market. That's months of your life dealing with this house in a bad neighborhood. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Smart to buy a house in college? ### Answer: People have lost money buying houses in good to great neighborhoods. It's a pretty large red flag that you state this so clearly "the neighborhood is pretty bad." I'd rather buy a bad house in a great neighborhood, and spend my weekends fixing it up, turning sweat equity into real equity. A two year bet? I'd pass. Close to the school, high demand area, and my answer might change. (And, "welcome, stranger") ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Smart to buy a house in college? ### Answer: I've heard success stories but personally, I was considering it and I'm so glad I didn't. I ended up hating the atmosphere; left after one semester. To take care of that house I rent out, I'd need to hire someone, or drive 2.5h each way for anything that needed my attention. If you plan to stay in the area, I'd consider the housing prices, the rental market, considering the responsibility of maintenance, your expected margin (trust me, it will be lower. I've never heard a landlord say he didn't encounter significant unintended expenses.) It's such a unique situation, it really requires more detail. After all, you'd be saving rent, have control over the house and who lives there, but you have a whole hell of a lot of responsibility. I met one guy who had basically became the house's mom because he had a vested interest and was always cleaning up spills, preventing staining or damage to the paint, facing awkward social situations as they tried to chase down rent. With the right people I've seen it go very well. Oh, one more caveat. With a live-in super', they can provide notice of any necessary repairs instantly and from there, the clock starts. They can legally withhold rent until the repairs are completed and if you're not too liquid after that down payment and the mortgage payments, plus school, etc.. this could put you between a rock and some hard ass creditors. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Smart to buy a house in college? ### Answer: NORMALLY, you don't want to buy in a bad neighborhood. The one exception is "gentrification," that is middle class people are moving in because of a good location (which you seem to have). The other important thing to do is to cover your mortgage. Four "guys" at $500 a month will do for an $1800 mortgage. The nice thing is that you are your own tenant for two years and can watch the place. The downside of the neighborhood may be that you can't rent the place to four "girls" or two girls and two guys even after you leave; it will always have to be "guys." I'd advise most people to pass. With your financial standing and entrepreneurial background, you might just be able to take this risk, and learn from it for your future dealings if it doesn't pan out. (Donald Trump "cut his teeth" on a slum complex in Cincinnati.) Hear what I (and others) have to say, then do what "feels right," based on your best judgment, of which you probably have plenty. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Non Resident Alien Spouse Treated As Resident - Self Employment Income ### Answer: First, the SSN isn't an issue. She will need to apply for an ITIN together with tax filing, in order to file taxes as Married Filing Jointly anyway. I think you (or both of you in the joint case) probably qualify for the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion, if you've been outside the US for almost the whole year, in which cases both of you should have all of your income excluded anyway, so I'm not sure why you're getting that one is better. As for Self-Employment Tax, I suspect that she doesn't have to pay it in either case, because there is a sentence in your linked page for Nonresident Spouse Treated as a Resident that says However, you may still be treated as a nonresident alien for the purpose of withholding Social Security and Medicare tax. and since Self-Employment Tax is just Social Security and Medicare tax in another form, she shouldn't have to pay it if treated as resident, if she didn't have to pay it as nonresident. From the law, I believe Nonresident Spouse Treated as a Resident is described in IRC 6013(g), which says the person is treated as a resident for the purposes of chapters 1 and 24, but self-employment tax is from chapter 2, so I don't think self-employment tax is affected by this election. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: What to do when paying for an empty office space? ### Answer: This sounds obvious, but: If the landlord is easygoing, you could ask him if he's okay with you subletting the space, and then you could sublet it. Of course you may have to do some work yourself to find an appropriate tenant and make sure you're doing everything legally, but if it works, it's better than paying rent for nothing. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: What to do when paying for an empty office space? ### Answer: Generally speaking, yes, you're obliged to pay rent for the remainder of the lease term. But the landlord is obliged to mitigate damages, so if you can find a suitable tenant the landlord has to let you out of the lease. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Should I buy or lease a car given that its not a super luxury car and I only drive 15 miles/d on avg? ### Answer: I have a few recommendations/comments: The trick here is to make it clear to the dealer that you will not be getting a new car from them and their only hope of making some money is to sell you your own car. You need to be prepared to walk away and follow through. DON'T buy a new car from them even if you end up turning it in! They could still come back a day later and offer a deal. Leasing a new car every 3 years is not the best use of money. You have to really, really like that new car feeling every three years and be willing to pay a premium for it. If you're a car nut (like me) and want to spend money on a luxury car, it's far wiser to purchase a slightly used luxury vehicle, keep it for 8+ years, and that way you won't have a car payment half the time! ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Should I buy or lease a car given that its not a super luxury car and I only drive 15 miles/d on avg? ### Answer: If you lease a car, you are paying for the depreciation of a certain number of miles, even if you don't actually use those miles. Since you know you will be well under the standard number of miles when your lease is up, and you already know that you want to keep the car, buying is better than leasing. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Should I buy or lease a car given that its not a super luxury car and I only drive 15 miles/d on avg? ### Answer: Alternative: buy a recent-model used car in good condition. Or buy an older car in good condition. Let someone else pay the heavy depreciation that happens the moment you drive a new car off the dealer's lot. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Should I buy or lease a car given that its not a super luxury car and I only drive 15 miles/d on avg? ### Answer: Which to do is determined by how you like to consume cars. If you don't drive a lot and like to get a new car every 2-3 years, leasing is often the better choice. If you drive a lot or want to keep a car longer than 3 years, you're normally better buying. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Should I buy or lease a car given that its not a super luxury car and I only drive 15 miles/d on avg? ### Answer: Leasing is not exactly a scam, but it doesn't seem to be the right product for you. The point of leasing over buying is that it turns the capital purchase of a car which needs to be depreciated for tax purposes into what is effectively a rental expense. Rent is an expense that can be deducted directly without depreciation. If you are not operating a business where you can take advantage of leasing's tax advantages, leasing is probably not for you. Because of the tax advantages, a lease can be more profitable for the car dealer. They can get a commission or finder's fee on the lease as well as the commission on the car sale. That extra profit comes from somewhere, presumably from you. If a business, you can then pass part of that to the government. As an individual, you lose that advantage. At this point, the best financial decision that you could make would be to buy out the lease on your current car. Lease prices are set based on the assumption that the car will have been abused during the course of the lease. If you are driving the car less than expected, its value is probably higher than the cost of buying out the lease. If you buy that car, you can drive it for years. Save up some money and buy your next car for cash rather than using financing. Of course, if you really want a new car and can afford it, you may not want to buy out the lease. That is of course your decision. You don't have to maximize your current financial position if buying a new car would return more satisfaction for the money in the long run. I would try to avoid financing for what is essentially a pleasure purchase though. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Should I buy or lease a car given that its not a super luxury car and I only drive 15 miles/d on avg? ### Answer: I usually recommend along these lines. If you are going to drive the same car for many years, then buy. Your almost always better to buy, and then drive a car for 10 years than to lease and replace it every 2 years. If you want a new car every two years then lease. You're usually better off leasing if you're going to replace the car before the auto loan is paid off or shortly there after. Also you can get "more car" for the same monthly money via leasing. I honestly would advise you to either buy out your lease, or buy a barely used car. Then drive it for as long as you can. Take the extra money you would spend and spend it on an awesome vacation or something. Also, if you're only driving 15 miles a day, then get a cheap, but solid car. Again, just my advice. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Should I buy or lease a car given that its not a super luxury car and I only drive 15 miles/d on avg? ### Answer: Cars depreciate and lose value the second you drive off the lot. Why lose money? Foreign cars require too much maintenance. What will kill your wallet will be the maintenance on the car, not the payment. Think tires, oil changes, spark plug changes, transmission oil changes, filter changes, brake changes, cost of maintaining is the expensive part. Call the dealer speak to the servicing dept, and go to town. Ask away what all this costs. Basic stuff you expect to have, and find out what the cost of owning that car. Then ask yourself, "should I buy it?". ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Tax on insurance payment due to car deemed as total loss? ### Answer: DJClayworth's response is generally correct. You wouldn't have to pay taxes on insurance benefits, since those are in fact bringing you whole to what you've lost. However, in some cases you do need to consider taxes. Specifically, if the insurance payout is higher than your cost basis in the lost property. While you may think that this never happens (why would the insurance company pay more than what it cost you?), it in fact quite frequently does. Specific example would be a car used in your business. If you used your car as part of your business and deducted car depreciation on your tax return - your cost basis was reduced by the depreciation. Getting a full car cost payout form insurance would in fact constitute taxable income to you for the difference between your cost basis (adjusted for the depreciation) and the payout. Another example would be collectibles. Say you bought a car 20 years ago at $5000, you maintained it well during the years (assume you spend another $5000 on repairs), and it is now insured at FMV of $50000. But, alas, it got destroyed by a mountain lion who climbed over the fence and pushed it over a cliff. You got a $50000 payout from your insurance company (because you insured it for full FMV coverage, as a collectible should be insured), of which $40000 will be taxable to you. There may be more specific cases where insurance payouts are (partially) taxable. However, as a general rule, they're not, as long as they're at or below your cost basis level. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Tax on insurance payment due to car deemed as total loss? ### Answer: Generally you do not pay taxes on insurance payouts that occur because of some kind of loss, provided you paid the premiums yourself. "Generally, if you're paying premiums yourself, such as for homeowners insurance and auto insurance, then your insurance benefits are not a taxable event," says Adam Sherman, CEO of Firstrust Financial Resources in Philadelphia. "Your benefits are reimbursement for expenses, rather than income." It's not as straightforward for death benefits and life insurance. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How much share do the venture capitalists want if they invest in our website? ### Answer: I have worked with venture capitalists on a few different online based tools. There is no rule. I have seen deals go through for as little as 10% and up to 80%. There are a number of factors in place: What it really comes down to in the tech world is "Is this a side job or your life and can you live while your site isn't generating income... and then can you pay others that you need to pay for your site to exist?" Venture capitalists are into risky ventures that offer a high return. They have a portfolio of businesses and one going down will be made up for with a huge return on another. They will shut you down super quick though if they think your team/idea is a dud. What they initially take from your business is so negotiable there is no reason for me to give a number. We might be able to give you a half-assed forecast if you tell us your idea/staff size/current revenue and expenses/projections/amount of investment looking for. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Tax question about selling a car ### Answer: I don't think there's much you can do. Losses from the sale of personal-use automobiles (used for pleasure, commuting, etc) are not deductible as capital losses. See IRS Tax Topic 409, end of the first paragraph. The expenses you incurred in owning and operating the car (insurance, fuel, maintenance, service plans, etc) are not deductible either. If you used it partly for business, then some of your expenses might be deductible; see IRS Tax Topic 510. This includes depreciation (decline in value), but only according to a standard schedule; you don't generally just get to deduct the difference between your buying and selling price. Also, you'd need to have records to verify your business use. But anyway, these deductions would apply (or not) regardless of whether you sell the car. You don't get your sales tax refunded when you resell the vehicle. That's why it's a sales tax, not a value-added tax. Note, however, that if you do sell it, the sales tax on this new transaction will be the buyer's responsibility, not yours. You do have the option on your federal income tax return to deduct the state sales tax you paid when you bought the car; in fact, you can deduct all the sales taxes you paid in that year. (If you have already filed your taxes for that year, you can go back and amend them.) However, this takes the place of your state income tax deduction for the year; you can't deduct both. See Tax Topic 503. So this is only useful if your sales taxes for that year exceeded the state income tax you paid in that year. Also, note that state taxes are not deductible on your state income tax return. Again, this deduction applies whether you sell the car or not. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Working for recruiter on W-2 vs. working for client on 1099? ### Answer: I don't think anyone can give you a definitive answer without knowing all about your situation, but some things to consider: If you are on a 1099, you have to pay self-employment tax, while on a W-2 you do not. That is, social security tax is 12.4% of your income. If you're a 1099, you pay the full 12.4%. If you're W-2, you pay 6.2% and the employer pays 6.2%. So if they offer you the same nominal rate of pay, you're 6.2% better off with the W-2. What sort of insurance could you get privately and what would it cost you? I have no idea what the going rates for insurance are in California. If you're all in generally good health, you might want to consider a high-deductible policy. Then if no one gets seriously sick you've saved a bunch of money on premiums. If someone does get sick you might still pay less paying the deductible than you would have paid on higher premiums. I won't go into further details as that's getting off into another question. Even if the benefits are poor, if there are any benefits at all it can be better than nothing. The only advantage I see to going with a 1099 is that if you are legally an independent contractor, then all your business expenses are deductible, while if you are an employee, there are sharp limits on deducting employee business expenses. Maybe others can think of other advantages. If there is some reason to go the 1099 route, I understand that setting up an LLC is not that hard. I've never done it, but I briefly looked into it once and it appeared to basically be a matter of filling out a form and paying a modest fee. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Working for recruiter on W-2 vs. working for client on 1099? ### Answer: The tax savings of being 1099 can be significant. It depends on your salary, and what you can deduct. You may want to consult with an accountant. The social security tax, for the self employed, is 12.4% of profit not on revenue. If you can write off more than half of the income as expenses then you could be paying less than a w-2 employee. Also you might make a higher salary as a 1099, it is rare the offer the same compensation for a W-2 as a 1099 as the former has higher expenses for the employer. It is hard to know without actual numbers, actual expected expense deductions and so forth. Which is why I would suggest consulting with an accountant. You may want to talk to one in the state where he will be working rather than where you live now. ###end

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.