First, determine the workload he will expect.  Will you have to quit your other work, either for time or for competition?  How much of your current business will be subsumed into his business, if any?  Make sure to understand what he wants from you.  If you make an agreement, set it in writing and set some clear expectations about what will happen to your business (e.g. it continues and is not part of your association with the client).  Because he was a client for your current business, it can blur the lines. Second, if you join him, make sure there is a business entity.  By working together for profit, you will have already formed a partnership for tax purposes.  Best to get an entity, both for the legal protection and also for the clarity of law and accounting.  LLCs are simplest for small ventures; C corps are useful if you have lots of early losses and owners that can't use them personally, or if you want to be properly formed for easy consumption by a strategic.  Most VCs and super-angels prefer everybody be a straight C.  Again, remember to define, as necessary, what you are contributing to be an owner and what you are retaining (your original business, which for simplicity may already be in an entity).  As part of this process, make sure he defines the cap table and any outstanding loans.  Auntie June and Cousin Steve might think their gifts to him were loans or equity purchases; best to clear this issue up early before there's any more money in it. Third, with regard to price, that is an intensely variable question.  It matters what the cap table looks like, how early you are, how much work he's already done, how much work remains to be done, and how much it will pay off.  Also, if you do it, expect to be diluted by other employees, angels, VCs, other investors, strategics, and so on.  Luckily, more investors usually indicates a growing pie, so the dilution may not be at all painful.  But it should still be on your horizon.  You also need to consider your faith in your prospective partner's ability to run the business and to be a trustworthy partner (so you don't get Zuckerberg'd), and to market the business and the product to customers and investors. If you don't like the prospects, then opt for cash.  If you like the business but want to hedge, ask for compensation plus equity.  There are other tricks you could use to get out early, like forced redemption, but they probably wouldn't help either because it'd sour your relationship or the first VC or knowledgeable angel to come along will want you to relinquish that sort of right. It probably comes down to a basic question of your need for cash, his willingness to let you pursue outside work (hopefully high) and your appraisal of the business' prospects.


Most corporate policies strictly prohibit the card's use for personal use, even if the intent is to re-pay in full, on or before the due date.  I'm certain it has something to do with limitation of liability, i.e. the monetary risk the company is willing to put itself at, in order to offer a corporate card program. In my experience, AMEX Corporate Card Services is the most widely-used card, and in my experience, it is your employer that determines and administers the policy that outlines the card's appropriate use, not the credit card provider, so you're best to check with your employer for a definitive answer to this.


You need a mixture of real estate, funds, and cash in the bank. Putting all your eggs in one basket is never wise.  I would also stay away from land-banking period... Like you had mentioned, scam after scam after scam... Here in Tokyo, Royal Siam Trust (White Sands Beach?) is the token land-banking scam... funny enough it was hosted by the OP...


Ditto Rocky. Also: Break the sale up over several tax years so that you don't have a spike in your income pushing you into a higher tax bracket. Don't sell it until you retire, when you're probably in a lower tax bracket. (If you're 20, this may be impractical.) Get some other deductions, like medical expenses, charity, etc. Failing that, maybe a couple of other ideas that neither of us thought of, I think the real answer is: suck it up and pay the taxes. If there was a way to reduce your taxes just by checking the right box on a tax form or some such, everybody would do it and the government wouldn't collect any taxes.


"No, it doesn't really matter at all.  This guy can spend $5 million a year for the rest of his life and still die being worth nine figures.  I guarantee you that tiny things like ""losing out on a couple of months interest"" will _never_ be a problem for him."


How do I account for this in the bookkeeping? Here is an example below:  This is how you would accurately depict contributions made by an owner for a business. If you would want to remove money from your company, or pay yourself back, this would be called withdrawals. It would be the inverse of the first journal entry with cash on the credit side and withdrawals on the debited side (as it is an expense).  You and your business are not the same thing. You are two different entities. This is why you are taxed as two different entities. When you (the owner) make contributions, it is considered to be the cash of the business. From here you will make these expenses against the business and not yourself.  Good luck,


"VAT = Value Added Tax (as an Aussie think ""GST"") This is applicable in Britain. Basically, if you were in Britain, and if you could claim VAT as a deduction, that invoice is not sufficient proof to make the claim. But you're in Oz so it doesn't apply to you in any case. For work-related deductions like book purchases, see http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.asp?doc=/content/00216829.htm&pc=001/002/068/001/002&mnu=&mfp=&st=&cy=1  Issues such as the books being second hand or purchased online are not cited in the instructions as relevant/limiting factors. In fact, if you really want to get into the nitty gritty, you could claim the work-related proportion of your internet access fees as a deduction (question D5 instructions, above, cover that as well)."


Ownership of the debt is irrelevant if Puerto Rico tells the investors to kick rocks. Which it already has.   Puerto Rico created the debt by accepting the loans it couldn't pay and under terms that caused full repayment in the event of one default. Which, spoiler alert, happens when you accrue $70bn in debt, with $50bn in unsecured pension liabilities created by bloated government pensions.   They also gave the middle finger to the investors whose money they happily took when things were good, only to flush it down the toilet and cry foul after they ran out of free money. The teacher's union and police officers unions opted out of SS so that they could reap these pension benefits.   The reality is that Puerto Rico buried itself in social programs that never really got an economy, that never had much going on, to experience any growth. It doesn't matter who owns the debt, this guy (from the article) sees a potential payday if the US swoops in and saves them from their crisis.   https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/08/business/dealbook/puerto-rico-teacher-pensions.html


i've been waiting for the MOVE to get off its butt for a while now but as long as we stay goldilocks and yellen vacillates between hawkish and dovish its hard for it to climb meaningfully.   The MOVE is at 52 now - for some context, the traditional view was that below 70 was complacent, above 100 was panic but since the era of unprecedented central bank intervention that hardly holds.


Answering this question is a great way to gauge how you're doing towards saving for retirement now. But of course what matters more than this snapshot in time is how much you contribute down the line.  It may be wise to try to estimate how much you will want saved by the time you retire. Then try to calculate how much you would need to save in order to hit that mark.


"How Italians have a general mistrust in the euro and the ECB makes me crazy.  The country with over 2000 billion in debt, that got its ass saved by quantitative easing done by the European Central Bank (iirc, 46% of bonds bought were of the Italian debt). No politicians says he wants to reduce the debt, no, the problem is again something ""outside"". How about reforming Italian banks and their infamous credits they're still not writing off as losses because of politics? How about reducing the debt?  How each and everyone who has a bank account in Italy isn't grateful to Draghi is a mystery to me.  The consequences of driving a G8 country, the 3rd largest economy in the EU, to the ground because of moronic politicians who can't for the love of their life plan long term are horrible.  It's not like the fucks given by politicians are hidden in this new currency system. FFS.  Quick edit: problem number 1, 2 and 3 of Italy is to reduce its debt. Il resto è noia, everything else is boredom."


Ok - what's your starting point?  Are you starting with equity value and then working your way back to an enterprise value?  Then yes, you must subtract cash and add debt.  If you're doing a DCF, you don't have to make any changes to the values at the end if you're looking for an enterprise value.  If you're looking for an equity value, you would need to add cash and subtract debt.  If you're simply applying a enterprise value multiple (such as EV / EBITDA) you don't need to make any changes.  Just multiply the Company's EBITDA by the multiple in question.  Enterprise values are supposed to be capital structure independent because they are only valuing the company on metrics that occur before the impact of the Company's capital structure.


"I apologize for not investigating the skeezy world of finance more than I have to, but the major banks invented derivatives that allow them to essentially make a ""bet"" on whether a company will perform well or poorly.  This then allows them to make a shitload of cash by manipulating the market in their favor unfairly and that is wrong.  That is my argument, if you want to get caught up in the semantics of acronyms be my guest but my argument is very real and shared by many so the real question is why are you so blind to the chicanery of major financial institutions?"


"Here's the issue as I see it. The fact that one has high interest debt says a lot about the potential borrower. Odds are very good that person will not pay the zero card off before the rate expires, and will likely charge more along the way.  I'd love to be able to say ""great idea, borrowing at a low rate to pay off a high rate card will be the first step to getting you all paid off"" but chances are in a year's time you will not be better off.  You said you know a lot of people that have done this. Have they all been successful? It's possible, but I'd heed the warnings of those here and first think how you got into the credit card debt."


IRS Publication 463 is a great resource to help you understand what you can and can't deduct.  It's not a yes/no question, it depends on the exact company use, other use, and contemporaneous record keeping.


"As other people have indicated, traditional IRAs are tax deductable for a particular year. Please note, though, that traditional IRAs are tax deferred (not tax-free) accounts, meaning that you'll have to pay taxes on any money you take out later regardless of why you're making the withdrawal. (A lot of people mistakenly call them tax free, which they're not). There is no such thing as a ""tax-free"" retirement account. Really, in terms of Roth vs. Traditional IRAs, it's ""pay now or pay later."" With the exception of special circumstances like this, I recommend investing exclusively in Roth IRAs for money that you expect to grow much (or that you expect to produce substantial income over time). Just to add a few thoughts on what to actually invest in once you open your IRA, I strongly agree with the advice that you invest mostly in low-cost mutual funds or index funds. The advantage of an open-ended mutual fund is that it's easier to purchase them in odd increments and you may be able to avoid at least some purchase fees, whereas with an ETF you have to buy in multiples of that day's asking price. For example, if you were investing $500 and the ETF costs $200 per share, you could only purchase 2 shares, leaving $100 uninvested (minus whatever fee your broker charged for the purchase). The advantage of an ETF is that it's easy to buy or sell quickly. Usually, when you add money to a mutual fund, it'll take a few days for it to hit your account, and when you want to sell it'll similarly take a few days for you to get your money; when I buy an ETF the transaction can occur almost instantly. The fees can also be lower (if the ETF is just a passive index fund). Also, there's a risk with open-ended mutual funds that if too many people pull money out at once the managers could be forced to sell stocks at an unfavorable price."


I'd listen to the person who doesn't want tax deferral.  S/he is wise. I'd do it in a taxable account.  Talk about the investments all you want, pool your knowledge, but invest privately and separately. Pay your taxes and be done with them.


How old are you? With $15k, I assume late twenties.  Do you still use your credit cards? or is this just past accumulated debt? (paying them off will do you no good if you just run them back up again.)  Does your employer match you contributions? How much? Are you fully vested in their contributions?    In general, it is not a good idea, but under the right circumstances it isn't a bad idea.


"You are correct.  Credit card companies charge the merchant for every transaction.  But the merchant isn't necessarily going to give you discount for paying in cash.  The idea is that by providing more payment options, they increase sales, covering the cost of the transaction fee.  That said, some merchants require a minimum purchase for using a credit card, though this may be against the policies of some issuers in the U.S. (I have no idea about India.) Also correct.  They hope that you'll carry a balance so that they can charge you interest on it.  Some credit cards are setup to charge as many fees as they possibly can.  These are typically those low limit cards that are marketed as ""good"" ways to build up your credit.  Most are basically scams, in the fact that the fees are outrageous. Update regarding minimum purchases: Apparently, Visa is allowing minimum purchase requirements in the U.S. of $10 or less.  However, it seems that MasterCard still does not allow them, for the most part.  Moral of the story: research the credit card issuers' policies.  A further update regarding minimum purchases: In the US, merchants will be allowed to require a minimum purchase of up to $10 for credit card transactions.  (I am guessing that prompted the Visa rule change mentioned above.) More detail can be found here in this answer, along with a link to the text of the bill itself."


"It depends on the volatility of the underlying stock. But for ""normal"" levels of volatility, the real value of that option is probably $3.50! Rough estimates of the value of the option depending on volatility levels: Bottom line: unless this is a super volatile stock, it is trading at $3.50 for a reason. More generally: it is extremely rare to find obvious arbitrage opportunities in the market."


You don't have to create a PayPal account in order to buy from a merchant that uses PayPal for processing their payments.  You can use your credit card just like with any other purchase. Creating a PayPal business account is, as you say, mainly for businesses wanting to accept payments, not make them.  PayPal doesn't require you, the customer, to have an account just to make a payment to a merchant.  We have dozens of customers a day make purchases through us using our PayPal account (we're small), and for them the main attraction to using PayPal to pay us is that PayPal has pretty good security and offers some very good customer protections against fraud.  They don't have to create a PayPal account just to pay us, though. When you create a PayPal business account, you link a bank account to it that they verify, then they issue you a PayPal MasterCard, which is a debit card that links to your PayPal account.  When you make purchases, if the funds are in your PayPal account (because, for instance, you're using PayPal as your merchant processor) then the payment is deducted from that.  If there's no money in your PayPal account then PayPal simply debits the bank account you linked with them, no differently than if you were to use your bank's debit card. In this instance, if you don't plan to use PayPal for merchant processing then there's no real reason to open a business account.  It doesn't have any advantages over your bank's debit card and, IMHO, just adds another layer of complexity and paperwork to your accounting for no identifiable benefit. I hope this helps. Good luck!


Both states will want to tax you. Your tax home is where you maintain a domicile, are registered to vote, etc. and you will probably want to keep this as MA since you state that MA is your permanent residence and you are staying in a rented place in PA. But be careful about voter registration; that is one of the items that can be used to determine your state of residence.  OK, so if you and your spouse are MA residents,  you should file jointly as residents in MA and as nonresidents in PA. Do the calculations on the nonresident return first, and then the calculations on the resident  return. Typically, on a nonresident tax return, the calculations are effectively the following: Report all your income (usually AGI from the Federal return).  Call this $X. Compute the PA state tax due on $X.  Note that you follow the rules for nonresidents in doing this, not the calculations used by PA residents. Call the amount of tax you computed as $Y. What part of the total income $X is attributable to PA sources? If this amount is $Z, then you owe PA $Y times (Z/X). On the resident return in MA, you will likely get some credit for the taxes paid to PA, and this will reduce your MA tax burden. Usually the maximum credit is limited to the lesser of actual tax paid to PA and what you would have had to pay MA for the same income. As far as withholding is concerned, your employer in PA will withhold PA taxes as if you are a PA resident, but you can adjust the amount via the PA equivalent of IRS Form W4 so as to account for any additional  tax that might be due because you will be filing as a nonresident.  Else you can pay estimated taxes via the PA equivalent of IRS Form 1040ES. Similarly, your wife can adjust her withholding to account for the MA taxes that you will owe on the joint income, or you can pay estimated taxes to MA too. Note that it is unlikely that your employer in Pennsylvania will withhold  Massachusetts taxes (and send them to Massachusetts) for you, e.g. if it is a ma-and-pa store, but there may be special deals available if  your employer does business in both states, i.e. is a MA-and-PA store.


I suggest you have a professional assist you with this audit, if the issue comes into questioning. It might be that it wouldn't. There are several different options to deal with such situation, and each can be attacked by the IRS. You'll need to figure out the following: Have you paid taxes on the reimbursement? Most likely you haven't, but if you had - it simplifies the issue for you. Is the program qualified under the employers' plan, and the only reason you're not qualified for reimbursement is that you decided to quit your job? If so, you might not be able to deduct it at all, because you can't take tax benefits on something you can be reimbursed for, but chose not to. IRS might claim that you quitting your job is choosing not to get reimbursement you would otherwise get. I couldn't find from my brief search any examples of what happened after such a decision. You can claim it was a loan, but I doubt the IRS will agree. The employer most likely reported it as an expense. If the IRS don't contest based on what I described in #2, and you haven't paid taxes on the reimbursement (#1), I'd say what you did was reasonable and should be accepted (assuming of course you otherwise qualify for all the benefits you're asking for). I would suggest getting a professional advice. Talk to a EA or a a CPA in your area. This answer was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer


"> What if you felt you were cheated by the bank?   I could ask a judge if I were.  My subjective feelings are of no relevance for the validity of the contract.    > What if you had something terrible unexpected happen to you financially?    Then I might get bankrupt as a consequence.  I did try to make certain that I can pay my loan even if something terrible happens to me.  That's why I live in a much smaller house in a less fancy neighbourhood.    > Also a loan is not a promise. A loan is a contract.  Every contract is a binding promise, establishing rights and obligations.  That's the whole point of a contract.    > The contract has outs for all parties.   Under certain conditions, a contract can have termination clauses.  But by far not all contracts have them.  And from a loan contract there is no ""out"" -- it is just that if you don't have any money to pay, you don't have any money to pay.    The whole concept of bankrupcy is just there to regulate the proceedings if you don't have the money to pay your dues -- not a convenient tool to cheat on your contractual obligations.  If it can be abused to this end, it needs to be reformed."


If the employer provides housing to the employee, the employer has to identify whether it is taxable or not. If it is - the amounts would be added to the taxable income on your W2. All the withholding and FICA tax calculations will be performed based on that taxable income. If the employer fails to do that, and you get audited, you can be left on the hook for the unpaid taxes on the unreported income. In some cases, employee housing is a non-taxable fringe benefit, in others it is taxable. Your tax adviser will help identify which case applies to you. After you added in a comment that you're trying to see if you should be asking your boss to pay your personal expenses vs. giving you a raise - as I said in the comments, your personal expenses are not deductible neither for you nor for anyone else. If your boss pays your rent instead of a raise - its taxable income for you.


"I'm not 100% certain on boats, since they aren't typically sold for a gain, but the tax base of an asset is typically the cost of the asset plus the cost of any improvements, so your $15,000 gain looks right (check with a CPA to be certain, though, if you can).  Your ""cost basis"" would be $50,000 + $25,000 = $75,000, and your net gain would be $90,000 - $75,000 = $15,000.  The result is the same, but the arithmetic is organized a little differently. I am fairly confident you cannot include your time in the ""cost of improvements"".  If you incorporated and ""paid yourself"" for the time, then the payment would be considered income (and taxed), if it was even allowed. Depending on your tax bracket that may be a WORSE option for you. You can look at it this way - you only pay the tax on the $15k gain versus paying someone else $15k to do the labor."


"I will disagree with the other answers. The idea that there is some to establish a ""credit history"" is largely a myth propagated by loaners who see it as positive propaganda to increase the numbers of their prospective customers. You will find some people who claim they were rejected for a card because they had no ""credit history,"" but in every case what these people are not telling you is they also had no income (were students, house wives, or others with no steady income). Anyone who has income can get a credit card or other line of credit regardless of their ""credit history."" Even people who have gone bankrupt can get credit cards if they have proven income. If your answer to this is that ""you have no income, but still want a credit card"", I would advise you to re-read that sentence several times and think carefully about it. I have never had a credit card and never missed having one, except when trying to rent cars which was somewhat complex and annoying to do in the 2005-2010 time period without a credit card. Credit cards have a number of disadvantages: I definitely agree with those who will tell you credit cards are convenient, they are, but for someone who wants to be financially prudent and build wealth they are unnecessary and unwise. If you don't believe me, read ""The Total Money Makeover"" by David Ramsey, one of the most famous and best-selling books ever written on personal finance. He actually will give you much better and detailed reasons to avoid CCs than me. After all, who am I, just some dumb rich schmuck with lots of money and no debt and a happy life. Comment on Culture I think it is pretty funny we have a lot of spendthrift Americans in this thread basically telling the OP to get lots of credit cards as soon as possible. If you asked the same question in Japan you would get completely different answers and votes. In Japan its hard to even use credit cards. The  people there are much more responsible financially than Americans; the average Japanese person has much higher wealth than a person with the same income in the United States. One of the reasons for this, among many, is that the average Japanese person does not use credit cards. A Japanese person, if you translated this question for them, would think the whole thing a typical example of how foolish Americans are."


The capital gain is counted as part of your income. So with a million capital gain you will be in a high tax bracket, and have to pay the corresponding capital gains tax rate on the million.


This is ideal placement for your allocation to income investments or those with nonqualified dividends: bonds, REITS, MLPS, other partnerships, and so forth.  These are all taxed at income rate, generally throw off more income than capital gains, so you get the deferment without losing the cap gains rate.


"I'm assuming you're operating on the cash basis of accounting, based on your comment ""Cash, I think that's the only way for a sole propriator (sic)"" Consider: There are two distinct but similar-name concepts here: ""paid for"" (in relation to a expense) and ""paid off"" (in relation to a debt).  These both occur in the case you describe: Under the cash basis of accounting, when you can deduct an expense is based on when you paid for the expense, not when you eventually pay off any resulting debt arising from paying for the expense. Admittedly, ""cash basis"" isn't a great name because things don't solely revolve around cash. Rather, it's when money has changed hands – whether in the form of cash, check, credit card, etc.  Perhaps ""monetary transaction basis"" might have been a better name since it would capture the paid-for concept whether using cash or credit.  Unfortunately, we're stuck with the terminology the industry established."


"You can exclude up to $250000 ($500000 for married filing jointly) of capital gains on property which was your primary residence for at least 2 years within the 5 years preceding the sale. This is called ""Section 121 exclusion"". See the IRS publication 523 for more details. Gains is the difference between your cost basis (money you paid for the property) and the proceeds (money you got when you sold it). Note that the amounts you deducted for depreciation (or were allowed to deduct during the period the condo was a rental, even if you chose not to) will be taxed at a special rate of 25% - this is called ""depreciation recapture"", and is discussed in the IRS publication 544."


This is a scam, I'm adding this answer because I was scammed in this fashion. The scammer sent me a check with which I was to deposit.  When the money showed up in my account, I would withdraw the scammer's share, and wire the cash to its destination. However, it takes a couple days for a check to clear.  Banks, however, want you to see that money, so they might give it to you on good faith before the check actually clears. That's how the scam works, you withdraw the fake money the bank has fronted before the check clears.  A couple days later, the check doesn't clear, and you wake up with an account far into the negatives, the scammer long gone.


Why the heck am I paying you when I could've made triple myself for nothing?   That's a familiar line among the redeemers.   They will probably cry when they don't understand why their losses outpace most of the funds once the bear market comes, also.


"To my knowledge, there's no universal equation, so this could vary by individual/company.   The equation I use (outside of sentiment measurement) is the below - which carries its own risks: This equations assumes two key points: Anything over 1.2 is considered oversold if those two conditions apply.  The reason for the bear market is that that's the time stocks generally go on ""sale"" and if a company has a solid balance sheet, even in a downturn, while their profit may decrease some, a value over 1.2 could indicate the company is oversold. An example of this is Warren Buffett's investment in Wells Fargo in 2009 (around March) when WFC hit approximately 7-9 a share.  Although the banking world was experiencing a crisis, Buffett saw that WFC still had a solid balance sheet, even with a decrease in profit.  The missing logic with many investors was a decrease in profits - if you look at the per capita income figures, Americans lost some income, but not near enough to justify the stock falling 50%+ from its high when evaluating its business and balance sheet.  The market quickly caught this too - within two months, WFC was almost at $30 a share. As an interesting side note on this, WFC now pays $1.20 dividend a year.  A person who bought it at $7 a share is receiving a yield of 17%+ on their $7 a share investment. Still, this equation is not without its risks.  A company may have a solid balance sheet, but end up borrowing more money while losing a ton of profit, which the investor finds out about ad-hoc (seen this happen several times).  Suddenly, what ""appeared"" to be a good sale, turns into a person buying a penny with a dollar.  This is why, to my knowledge, no universal equation applies, as if one did exist, every hedge fund, mutual fund, etc would be using it. One final note: with robotraders becoming more common, I'm not sure we'll see this type of opportunity again.  2009 offered some great deals, but a robotrader could easily be built with the above equation (or a similar one), meaning that as soon as we had that type of environment, all stocks fitting that scenario would be bought, pushing up their PEs.  Some companies might be willing to take an ""all risk"" if they assess that this equation works for more than n% of companies (especially if that n% returns an m% that outweighs the loss).  The only advantage that a small investor might have is that these large companies with robotraders are over-leveraged in bad investments and with a decline, they can't make the good investments until its too late.  Remember, the equation ultimately assumes a person/company has free cash to use it (this was also a problem for many large investment firms in 2009 - they were over-leveraged in bad debt)."


Annuity calculation formulas can be found here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annuity_(finance_theory). In addition, as suggested in the comments, there are many sites that have calculators. Having said that, a simple financial mechanism that is followed by many is to invest a portion of the fund in regular income instruments, for example Govt. or corporate bonds that pay a regular coupon/interest and some in diversified instruments like gold, stock etc. The exact proportion is dependent on may factors, like mortality, inflation, lifestyle, health care requirements, other expenses. The regular income provides the day to day expenses on a monthly/yearly basis, while the other instruments hedge against inflation and provide growth.


There are two 'dates' relevant to your question: Ex-Dividend and Record. To find out these dates for a specific security visit Dividend.Com. You have to purchase the security prior to the Ex-Dividend date, hold it at least until the Record Date. After the Record Date you can sell the security and still receive the dividend for that quarter.  ---- edit - - - -  I was wrong. If you sell the security after the Ex-div date but before the date of record you still get the dividend.  http://www.investopedia.com/articles/02/110802.asp


Simply if your stock is still rising in price keep it. If it is falling in price sell it and pay off your mortgage. To know when to do this is very easy. If it is currently rising you can put a trailing stop loss on it and sell it when it drops and hits your stop loss. A second easy method is to draw an uptrend line under the increasing price and then sell when the price drops down below the uptrend line, as per the chart below.  This will enable you to capture the bulk of the price movement upward and sell before the price drops too far down. You can then use the profits (after tax) to pay down your mortgage. Of course if the price is currently in a downtrend sell it ASAP.


Investopedia does have tutorials about investments in different asset classes. Have you read them ? If you had heard of CFA, you can read their material if you can get hold of it or register for CFA. Their material is quite extensive and primarily designed for newbies.  This  is one helluva book and advice coming from persons who have showed and proved their tricks. And the good part is loads of advice in one single volume. And what they would suggest is probably opposite of what you would be doing in a hedge fund. And you can always trust google to fish out resources at the click of a button.


"If the cheque is crossed (as almost all are these days), it can only be paid into an account in the name of the person it was written out to: it cannot be paid into another's account, nor can it be ""cashed""1 – see the rules on ""Crossed"" cheques. Note: that while the recipient of the cheque cannot (legally) alter this state of afairs, the writer of a cheque that was printed pre-crossed can – at least technically – cancel the crossing (see above link). Probably the best the OP can do is pay in the cheque on the friend's behalf (as described in Ben Millwood's answer) and then either lend the friend some money until they are mobile and can get some cash to repay the OP (or have the friend write one of their own cheques which the OP can pay into their bank account). 1 As mentioned in the last section of the rules on crossed cheques, the only exception is that designated ""Cheque cashing shops"" have special arrangements to deposit cheques which they have cashed (after deducting a fee). However, they would (should?) require proof of identity (of the original payee) and so are unlikely to be of any help (and probably not worth the cost for £35).  Having said that, I've never used one, so have no idea how strict they are in practice."


One's paycheck typically has a YTD (year to date) number that will end on the latest check of the year. I am paid bi-weekly, and my first 2012 check was for work 12/25 - 1/7. So, for my own balance sheet, brokerage statements and stock valuations end 12/31, but my pay ended 12/24. And then a new sheet starts.


It's tough to avoid the discussion of taxes. Matthew's answer was excellent but of course, tax was part of the discussion.  In an article I wrote a while back, The 15% solution, I described how one can optimize taxes paid by using Roth (401 or IRA) while at a marginal 15%, and carefully transition to pretax to avoid the 25% bracket. It's possible to effectively save money from a 25% rate and withdraw it at 0%. (Zero is what one pays for the first $20K of a couple's income, this is the combined standard deduction and personal exemptions.) It would take $500K at retirement to produce the $20,000 withdrawal at a 4% rate. Keep in mind, this is a moving target as the numbers edge up each year.  With no match, I'd consider the Roth IRA. But I also agree, paying higher interest debt first is a wise priority.


$23,000 Student Loans at 4% This represents guaranteed loss. Paying this off quickly is a conservative move, while your other investments may easily surpass 4% return, they are not guaranteed.  Should I just keep my money in my savings account since I want to keep   my money available? Or are there other options I have that are not   necessarily long term may provide better returns? This all depends on your plans, if you're just trying to keep cash in anticipation of the next big dip, you might strike gold, but you could just as easily miss out on significant market gains while waiting. People have a poor track record of predicting market down-turns. If you are concerned about how exposed to market risk you are in your current positions, then you may be more comfortable with a larger cash position. Savings/CDs are low-interest, but much lower risk. If you currently have no savings (you titled the section savings, but they all look like retirement/investment accounts), then I would recommend focusing on that first, getting a healthy emergency fund saved up, and budgeting for your car/house purchases.  There's no way to know if you'd be better off investing everything or piling up cash in the short-term. You have to decide how much risk you are comfortable with and act accordingly.


There are sites in India that offer this, http://www.intuit.in/ is one such site. Apart from this some banks like ICICI offer this to limited extent.


"The answer to your question has to do with the an explanation of ""shares authorized, issued and outstanding."" Companies, in their Articles of Incorporation, specify a maximum number of shares they are authorized to issue. For example purposes let's assume Facebook is authorized to issue 100 shares. Let's pretend they have actually issued 75 shares, but only 50 are outstanding (aka Float, i.e. freely trading stock in the market) and stock options total 25 shares. So if someone owns 1 share, what percentage of Facebook do they own? You might think 1/100, or 1%; you might think 1/75, or 1.3%; or you might think 1/50, or 2%.  2% is the answer, but only on a NON-diluted basis. So today someone who owns 1 share owns 2% of Facebook. Tomorrow Facebook announces they just issued 15 shares to Whatsapp to buy the company.  Now there are 65 shares outstanding and 90 issued. Now someone who owns 1 share of Facebook own only 1/65, or 1.5% (down from 2%)! P.S. ""Valuation"" can be thought of as the price of the stock at the time of the purchase announcement."


As littleadv suggested, you are mixing issues. If you have earned income and are able to deduct an IRA deposit, where those actual dollars came from is irrelevant.  The fact that you are taking proceeds from one transaction to deposit to the IRA is a booking entry on your side, but the IRS doesn't care. By the way, when you get that $1000 gain, the broker doesn't withhold tax, so if you take the entire $1000 and put it in the IRA, you owe $150 on one line, but save $250 elsewhere, and are still $100 to the positive on your tax return.


"Volume is really only valuable when compared to some other volume, either from a historical value, or from some other stock.  The article you linked to doesn't provide specific numbers for you to evaluate whether volume is high or low. Many people simply look at the charts and use a gut feel for whether a day's volume is ""high"" or ""low"" in their estimation. Typically, if a day's volume is not significantly taller than the usual volume, you wouldn't call it high. The same goes for low volume. If you want a more quantitative approach, a simple approach would be to use the normal distribution statistics: Calculate the mean volume and the standard deviation. Anything outside of 1.5 to 2.0 standard deviations (either high or low) could be significant in your analysis. You'll need to pick your own numbers (1.5 or 2.0 are just numbers I pulled out of thin air.) It's hard to read anything specific into volume, since for every seller, there's a buyer, and each has their reasons for doing so. The article you link to has some good examples of using volume as a basis for strengthening conclusions drawn using other factors."


"As soon as you specify FDIC you immediately eliminate what most people would call investing. The word you use in the title ""Parking"" is really appropriate. You want to preserve the value. Therefore bank or credit union deposits into either a high yield account or a Certificate of Deposit are the way to go. Because you are not planning on a lot of transactions you should also look at some of the online only banks, of course only those with FDIC coverage. The money may need to be available over the next 2-5 years to cover   college tuition If needing it for college tuition is a high probability you could consider putting some of the money in your state's 529 plan. Many states give you a tax deduction for contributions. You need to check how much is the maximum you can contribute in a year. There may be a maximum for your state. Also gift tax provisions have to be considered. You will also want to understand what is the amount you will need to cover tuition and other eligible expenses. There is a big difference between living at home and going to a state school, and going out of state. The good news is that if you have gains and you use the money for permissible expenses, the gains are tax free. Most states have a plan that becomes more conservative as the child gets closer to college, therefore the chance of losses will be low. The plan is trying to avoid having a large drop in value just a the kid hits their late teens, exactly what you are looking for."


You could talk to them, but (assuming you're in the U.S.), it's highly doubtful any bank would honor a check from 26 years ago.  Most checks in the U.S. are only valid for 180 days, mainly to help companies and banks keep accounting simple. I would suggest talking to your late husband's former employer.  Explain the situation and ask if they'd be willing to research it and perhaps honor his memory and contribution to their company by issuing a new check.  They might do it as a gesture of good will. Are they legally bound to do this?  To my knowledge, the answer is no.  The check was issued and never cashed, which is not all that unusual for companies in business for a long time.  A good example of this would be rebate checks, which (you'd be surprised) quite frequently end up in a drawer and forgotten about.  There has to be some closure for the issuing company in its accounting, else they'd have money in their bank accounts that doesn't properly show in their ledgers. This is an interesting question, though.  I hope others will reply, and perhaps they have a more informed take than me.  I'm going to upvote it simply because I'd like to see this discussion continue. Good luck!


"In my view, it's better to sell when there's a reason to sell, rather than to cap your gains at 8%. I'm assuming you have no such criteria on the other side - i.e. hold your losses down to 8%. That's because what matters is how much you make overall in your portfolio, not how much you make per trade. Example: if you own three stocks, equal amounts - and two go up 20% but one falls 20%. If you sell your gains at 8%, and hold the loser, you have net LOST money. So when do you actually sell? You might say a ""fall of 10%"" from the last high is good enough to sell. This is called a ""trailing"" stop, which means if a stock goes from 100 to 120, I'll still hold and sell if it retraces to 108. Needless to say if it had gone from 100 to 90, I would still be out. The idea is to ride the trend for as long as you can, because trends are strong. And keep your trailing stops wide enough for it to absorb natural jiggles, because you may get stopped out of a stock that falls 4% but eventually goes up 200%. Or sell under other conditions: if the earnings show a distinct drop, or the sector falls out of favor.  Whenever you decide to sell, also consider what it would take for you to buy the stock back - increased earnings, strong prices, a product release, whatever. Because getting out might seem like a good thing, but it's just as important to not think of it as saying a stock is crappy - it might just be that you had enough of one ride. That doesn't mean you can't come back for another one."


Focus on the economics of it.  If you have a contract do deliver energy at some price P in the future, and you know your current operating margins. If your job is to hedge, you want to lock in your profits and let the market go whereever it goes.  Basically, the goal of hedging in these markets is to lock in your operating margins by creating a spread between your production, the market and the consumer's prices.


Absolute shit negotiating skills from the guy that thinks he can start a business too. I can get being a cash strapped start-up, but he could have at least countered with a mix of cash and equity. Exposure is bullshit. If the idea is good enough someone will take a cash/equity mix or even all equity


"ETF Creation and Redemption Process notes the process: While ETF trading occurs on an exchange like stocks, the process by   which their shares are created is significantly different. Unless a   company decides to issue more shares, the supply of shares of an   individual stock trading in the marketplace is finite. When demand   increases for shares of an ETF, however, Authorized Participants (APs)   have the ability to create additional shares on demand. Through an ""in kind"" transfer mechanism, APs create ETF units in the   primary market by delivering a basket of securities to the fund equal   to the current holdings of the ETF. In return, they receive a large   block of ETF shares (typically 50,000), which are then available for   trading in the secondary market. This ETF creation and redemption   process helps keep ETF supply and demand in continual balance and   provides a ""hidden"" layer of liquidity not evident by looking at   trading volumes alone. This process also works in reverse. If an investor wants to sell a   large block of shares of an ETF, even if there seems to be limited   liquidity in the secondary market, APs can readily redeem a block of   ETF shares by gathering enough shares of the ETF to form a creation   unit and then exchanging the creation unit for the underlying   securities. Thus, the in-kind swap to the underlying securities is only done by APs so the outflow would be these individuals taking a large block of the ETF and swapping it for the underlying securities.  The APs would be taking advantage of the difference between what the ETF's trading value and the value of the underlying securities."


If you don't have the time or interest to manage investments, you need a financial advisor.  Generally speaking, you're better served by an advisor who collects an annual fee based on a percentage of your account value. Advisors who are compensated based on transactions have a vested interest to churn your account, which is often not in your best interest. You also need to be wary of advisors who peddle expensive mutual funds with sales loads (aka kick-backs to the advisor) or annuities. Your advisor's compensation structure should be transparent as well.


The trades after that date were Ex-DIV, meaning after 5 pm Dec 12, new trades did not include the shares that were to be spun out.  The process is very orderly, no one pays $60 without getting the spinoff, and no one pays $30 but still gets it. The real question is why there's that long delay nearly three weeks to make the spinoff shares available. I don't know.  By the way, the stock options are adjusted as well. Someone owning a $50 put isn't suddenly in the money on 12/13. Edit - (I am not a hoarder. I started a fire last night and realized I had a few Barron's in the paper pile) This is how the ABT quote appeared in the 12/24 issue of Barron's. Both the original quote, and the WI (when issued) for the stock less the spin off company.


You are asking about what happens when an ETF/mutual fund company goes bankrupt. If you were asking about a bank account you would be asking about FDIC coverage.  Investment funds are different, the closest thing to FDIC protection is provided by  Securities Investors Protection Corporation (SIPC) SIPC was created under the Securities Investor Protection Act as a   non-profit membership corporation. SIPC oversees the liquidation of   member broker-dealers that close when the broker-dealer is bankrupt or   in financial trouble, and customer assets are missing. In a   liquidation under the Securities Investor Protection Act, SIPC and the   court-appointed Trustee work to return customers’ securities and cash   as quickly as possible. Within limits, SIPC expedites the return of   missing customer property by protecting each customer up to $500,000   for securities and cash (including a $250,000 limit for cash only). SIPC is an important part of the overall system of investor protection   in the United States. While a number of federal and state securities   agencies and self-regulatory organizations deal with cases of   investment fraud, SIPC's focus is both different and narrow: restoring   customer cash and securities left in the hands of bankrupt or   otherwise financially troubled brokerage firms. SIPC was not chartered by Congress to combat fraud. Although created   under a federal law, SIPC is not an agency or establishment of the   United States Government, and it has no authority to investigate or   regulate its member broker-dealers. It is important to understand that   SIPC is not the securities world equivalent of the Federal Deposit   Insurance Corporation (FDIC), which insures depositors of insured   banks.


Since making loans isn't 'casino banking', I'm going to start a small, regional lending institution that just lends money to people to buy homes.  I really want to open up home ownership to a larger group of people, maybe those who wouldn't qualify for traditional loans.  I'm just not sure whether to call it Washington Federal or Countrywide Financial.


Something very similar to this was extremely popular in the UK in the late 1980s.  The practice has completely vanished since the early 2000s.  Reading up on the UK endowment mortgage scandals will probably give you an excellent insight into whether you should attempt your plan. Endowment mortgages were provided by banks and at their peak were probably the most popular mortgage form.  The basic idea was that you only pay the interest on your mortgage and invest a small amount each month into a low fee endowment policy.  Many endowment policies were simply index tracking, and the idea being that by the end of your mortgage you would have built up a portfolio sufficient to pay off your mortgage, and may well have extra left over. In the late 1990s the combination of falling housing market and poor stock performance meant that many people were left with both the endowment less than their mortgage and their house in negative equity.


Co-signing is not the same as owning. If your elderly lady didn't make any payments on the loan, and isn't on the ownership of the car, and there was no agreement that you would pay her anything, then you do not owe either her or her daughter any money. Also the loan is not affecting the daughter's credit, and the mother's credit is irrelevant (since she is dead). However you should be aware that the finance company will want to know about the demise of the mother, since they can no longer make a claim against her if you default. I would start by approaching the loan company, telling them about the mother's death, and asking to refinance in your name only. If you've really been keeping up the payments well this could be OK with them. If not I would find someone else who is prepared to co-sign a new loan with you, and still refinance. Then just tell the daughter that the loan her mother co-signed for has been discharged, and there is nothing for her to worry about.


"No, Skiffbug is not English.   Second, it's very clear that the type of method considered ""special"" by the tax code is clearly not labor, but capital gains and gains from ""carried interest"".  If you actually take 3 seconds to read my comment, I am saying both should be treated in exactly the same way, and taxed at the same progressive scale."


"In general there are two types of futures contract, a put and call.  Both contract types have both common sides of a transaction, a buyer and a seller.  You can sell a put contract, or sell a call contract also; you're just taking the other side of the agreement.  If you're selling it would commonly be called a ""sell to open"" meaning you're opening your position by selling a contract which is different from simply selling an option that you currently own to close your position. A put contract gives the buyer the right to sell shares (or some asset/commodity) for a specified price on a specified date; the buyer of the contract gets to put the shares on someone else.   A call contract gives the buyer the right to buy shares (or some asset/commodity) for a specified price on a specified date; the buyer of the contract gets to call on someone for shares. ""American"" options contracts allow the buyer can exercise their rights under the contract on or before the expiration date; while ""European"" type contracts can only be exercised on the expiration date. To address your example.  Typically for stock an option contract involves 100 shares of a stock.  The value of these contracts fluctuates the same way other assets do.  Typically retail investors don't actually exercise their contracts, they just close a profitable position before the exercise deadline, and let unprofitable positions expire worthless.  If you were to buy a single call contract with an exercise price of $100 with a maturity date of August 1 for $1 per share, the contract will have cost you $100.  Let's say on August 1 the underlying shares are now available for $110 per share.  You have two options: Option 1: On August 1, you can exercise your contract to buy 100 shares for $100 per share.  You would exercise for $10,000 ($100 times 100 shares), then sell the shares for $10 profit per share; less the cost of the contract and transaction costs. Option 2: Your contract is now worth something closer to $10 per share, up from $1 per share when you bought it.  You can just sell your contract without ever exercising it to someone with an account large enough to exercise and/or an actual desire to receive the asset or commodity."


Wow, very amused by some of the answers. I will comment on those later. To directly answer your question, here is a link to a brochure that explains the three basic typs and is written in straightforward language. link text That is step one. Step 2 is a question, cheapest when, initially or for long term? Without a doubt term initially is the cheapest. However every 10 years or 20 years it increases in price. As the name term implies it is temporary. Coverage will end at some point, 75, or 80 depending upon plan design chosen. It is possible that if you choose Term you can outlive your coverage and all you have are a bunch of cancelled cheques. Young people with a mortgage, children and other debts should buy a lot of term as the mortgage will be paid off, the kids will no longer be dependent. These needs are temporary. However some needs are permanent. What about leaving a Legacy at Death to a Charity? Insurance is a good solution and can provide a tax deduction too. Term isn't a good fit. Or a business owner wishing to transfer his/her business at death to their children. Taxes will be due and permanent insurance such as Whole Life and Universal Life can be arranged to provide cash to pay tax whenever this happens.  Let me ask you who received 10% in the last ten years on their equity portfolio. Almost zero people did. However a Whole Plan would have generated a guaranteed return of 3.0% plus a non-guaranteed return via dividends that the combined internal rate of return  on a combined basis would be about 5.6% AFTER TAXES. Life a bond portfolio yield. (Internal rate of return is dependent on age at buying, years of investing. All insurance comany software can show you the internal rate of return.) IRR is essesntially: what is the return after tax that you must get to equal the equity or death benefit from a permanent insurance plan. Someone mentioned by Term and Invest the difference. That is what universal life is, Term and Invest the difference except the difference is growing tax sheltered.Outside investments with comparable risk are taxable! There is no easy answer for what type is right, often a combination is. The key question you should ask is How Much Is Enough? Then consider types based upon your needs and budget. Here is a link where you can calculate how much you need. I hope this helps a bit.


Fully Paid up Partly Paid up: A company may issue stock to you which is only partly paid up, for example, a company may issue a stock of face value 10 to you and ask you to pay 5 now and other 5 will be adjusted later by some other mechanism. This stock shall be partly paid up. Usually, these stocks are issued in different circumstances, for example as part payment for debentures, preference shares or other capital structuring. On the other hand for a fully paid up share no more money needs to be paid by you or no other adjustments need to be made. So, above, the company is issuing you with stocks for which you will need to pay no further money, they are fully paid for. Authorized Capital: Authorized capital of a company is the amount of money a company can raise by selling stock (not debt, equity). This number is registered when the company is incorporated, subsequently, this number can be revised upward by applying to the registrar of companies. Now, this means that at max. the company is authorized to raise this much capital and no more. However, a company may raise less than this, which is called Issued Capital. In your case, the company is raising its authorized capital by applying to the registrar of companies, though in this case they are looking at their full authorized capital to be issued capital, it was not necessary to do so. Increase of Authorized capital: The main benefit is that the company can get more money in form of equity and utilize the same, perhaps, for expansion of business etc., that is the primary benefit. Bonus Share: Usually, companies keep some surplus as reserve, this money comes out of the profit the company makes and is essentially money of the shareholders. This reserve surplus is maintained for situations, when the money may be required for exigencies. However, this surplus grows over a few years and the company usually the company plans for an expansion of business. However, this money cannot be just taken, as it belongs to the shareholder, so shareholders are issued extra equity in proportion to their current holding and this surplus is capitalized i.e. used as part of the company's equity capital. Bonus declaration does not add t o the value of the company and the share prices fall in proportion (but not quite) to the bonus.


"There is a ten year statue of limitations on debt collection, bankruptcy, etc. The problem is, if you start paying, even say, $1, you ""acknowledge"" the debt and the clock starts again. Debt claims fall under the ""he said, she said,"" rubric. In debt restructuring situations, the debtor is taught to write all their creditors DENYING debts. Some percentage of those creditors won't have the paperwork to back up their claims. Others will, and can press their claims. Then a court decides.  But in any event, a debt more than tens years old is a ""stale,"" debt. A court is likely to rule in your favor. Unless you ""acknowledge"" the debt."


"Give me your money. I will invest it as I see fit. A year later I will return the capital to you, plus half of any profits or losses. This means that if your capital under my management ends up turning a profit, I will keep half of those profits, but if I lose you money, I will cover half those losses. Think about incentives. If you wanted an investment where your losses were only half as bad, but your gains were only half as good, then you could just invest half your assets in a risk-free investment. So if you want this hypothetical instrument because you want a different risk profile, you don't actually need anything new to get it. And what does the fund manager get out of this arrangement? She doesn't get anything you don't: she just gets half your gains, most of which she needs to set aside to be able to pay half your losses. The discrepancy between the gains and losses she gets to keep, which is exactly equal to your gain or loss. She could just invest her own money to get the same thing. But wait -- the fund manager didn't need to provide any capital. She got to play with your money (for free!) and keep half the profits. Not a bad deal, for her, perhaps... Here's the problem: No one cares about your thousands of dollars. The costs of dealing with you: accounting for your share, talking to you on the phone, legal expenses when you get angry, the paperwork when you need to make a withdrawal for some dental work, mailing statements and so on will exceed the returns that could be earned with your thousands of dollars. And then the SEC would probably get involved with all kinds of regulations so you, with your humble means and limited experience, isn't constantly getting screwed over by the big fund. Complying with the SEC is going to cost the fund manager something. The fund manager would have to charge a small ""administrative fee"" to make it worthwhile.  And that's called a mutual fund. But if you have millions of free capital willing to give out, people take notice. Is there an instrument where a bunch of people give a manager capital for free, and then the investors and the manager share in the gains and losses? Yes, hedge funds! And this is why only the rich and powerful can participate in them: only they have enough capital to make this arrangement beneficial for the fund manager."


No one can advise you on whether to hold this stock or sell it. Your carried losses can offset short or long term gains, but the long term losses have to be applied to offset long term gains before any remaining losses can offset short term gains. Your question doesn't indicate how long you have to hold before the short term gains become long term gains. Obviously the longer the holding period, the greater the risk. You also must avoid a wash sale (selling to lock in the gains/reset your basis then repurchasing within a month). All of those decisions hold risks that you have to weigh. If you see further upside in holding it longer, keep the investment. Don't sell just to try to maximize tax benefits.


I second CrimsonX's advice to max out Roth then 401k. At your age in what sounds like a similar situation I did the same thing -- thankfully. It's easier to do when you're young and unencumbered. 10 years later with kids, house, changing from double to single income, job changes, etc, it's harder to max out retirement accounts. Not to mention that priorities change, e.g. saving for college.


Stated plainly... it's a benefit. Companies are not required to offer you any compensation above paying you minimum wage. But benefits attract higher quality employees.  I think a big part of it is that it is the norm. Employees want it because of the tax benefits. Employees expect it because almost all reputable companies of any significant size offer it. You could run a great company, but if you don't offer a 401k plan, you can scare away good potential employees. It would give a bad impression the same way that not offering health insurance would.


Note that you're asking about withholding, not about taxing.  Withholding doesn't mean this is exactly the tax you'll pay: it means they're withholding a certain amount to make sure you pay taxes on it, but the tax bill at the end of the year is the same regardless of how you choose to do the withholding.  Your tax bill may be higher or lower than the withholding amount. As far as tax rate, that will be the same regardless - you're just moving the money from one place to the other.   The only difference would be that your tax is based on total shares under the plan - meaning that if you buy 1k shares, for example, at $10, so $1,500 discounted income, if you go the payroll route you get (say) $375 withheld.  If you go the share route, you either get $375 worth of stock (so 38 shares) withheld (and then you would lose out on selling that stock, meaning you don't get quite as much out of it at the end) or you would ask them to actually buy rather more shares to make up for it, meaning you'd have a slightly higher total gain.  That would involve a slightly higher tax at the end of it, of course. Option 1:  Buy and then sell $10000 worth, share-based withholding.  Assuming 15% profit, and $10/share at both points, then buy/sell 1000 shares, $1500 in profit to take into account, 38 shares' worth (=$380) withheld.  You put in $8500, you get back $9620, net $1120.   Option 2:  Buy and then sell $13500 worth, share based withholding.  Same assumptions.  You make about $2000 in pre-tax profit, meaning you owe about $500 in tax withholding.  Put in $11475, get back $13000, net $1525.  Owe 35% more tax at the end of the year, but you have the full $1500 to spend on whatever you are doing with it. Option 3:  Buy and then sell $1000 worth, paycheck withholding.  You get the full $10000-$8500 = $1500 up front, but your next paycheck is $375 lighter.  Same taxes as Option 1 at the end of the year.


The idea is old as dirt, and some millions of people had it before you. Credit card swipes cost you between 2.4 and 4.5%, depending on the cards, the provider, and the amounts, plus potentially a fixed small amount per swipe. Of course, a 2% cash back card cost more than 2% to swipe; and a 3% cash back card cost more than 3% to swipe; those guys are not morons.


This answer will be US-centric but hopefully most of the information will be applicable to other jurisdictions: Generally speaking:


As others have pointed out, post-tax dollars are what you'll use.  Just as a quick note, as you'll be using post-tax dollars; in the past, I've refused to take contractor plans because they almost always are inferior to what I've been able to get off the private exchange ehealthinsurance.  A few people have written excellent articles on Get Rich Slowly here and here about them in detail if you want more information. Generally, contractors (and sometimes employees) are offered a few plans (3-4), and this health exchange gives you a little more freedom to pick your plan, which in your situation may help.  It isn't always cheaper, but depending on your needs, you may obtain a better deal. Forgot to add this: this option has also made switching jobs easy as well since I don't have to pay COBRA.  While it depends on the situation, this can sometimes come out significantly cheaper.  For instance, if I were to take the employer health plan next year, I would lose ~$450 a month, whereas the private exchange option is ~$300.  But, if I were to switch jobs, decide to opt for self-employment, or a layoff, the COBRA would be even higher than ~$450.


"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.governing.com/topics/finance/gov-cashless-businesses-poor-unbanked.html) reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Sweetgreen, a salad food chain, went cashless at locations this year in California, Illinois, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Washington, D.C. Jetties, which serves salads and sandwiches throughout D.C., went cashless in 2015.  > &quot;We&#039;re not for or against cashless transactions. Our biggest concern isn&#039;t cash or not-cash, it&#039;s banked or not-banked,&quot; says David Rothstein of the Cities for Financial Empowerment Fund, a nonprofit that aims to provide low- and moderate-income people with financial stability.  > An Amsterdam Falafel in Boston briefly went cashless last year but quickly halted the experiment and has no plans to go cashless at any of their locations, says Arianne Bennett, president and CEO of the fast-casual chain.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6oaesl/how_a_cashless_society_would_harm_the_poor/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~170783 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **cashless**^#1 **people**^#2 **bank**^#3 **account**^#4 **cash**^#5"


Paying off the student loans slower and investing the rest has some advantages - the interest is tax deductible (essentially lowering that 7% number), and it helps allow you to build up a liquid emergency fund which is more important to financial security than returns.


"The stock market is not a zero-sum game.  Some parts are (forex, some option trading), but plain old stock trading is not zero sum. That is to say, if you were to invest ""at random"", you would on average make money.  That's because the market as a whole makes money - it goes up over time (6-10% annually, averaged over time).  That's because you're not just gambling when you buy a stock; you're actually contributing money to a company (directly or indirectly), which it uses to fund activities that (on average) make money.  When you buy Caterpillar stock, you're indirectly funding Caterpillar building tractors, which they then sell for a profit, and thus your stock appreciates in value.  While not every company makes a profit, and thus not every stock appreciates in true value, the average one does. To some extent, buying index funds is pretty close to ""investing at random"".  It has a far lower risk quotient, of course, since you're not buying a few stocks at random but instead are buying all stocks in an index; but buying stocks from the S&P 500 at random would on average give the same return as VOO (with way more volatility). So for one, you definitely could do worse than 50/50; if you simply sold the market short (sold random stocks short), you would lose money over time on average, above and beyond the transaction cost, since the market will go up over time on average. Secondly, there is the consideration of limited and unlimited gains or losses. Some trades, specifically some option trades, have limited potential gains, and unlimited potential losses. Take for example, a simple call option.  If you sell a naked call option - meaning you sell a call option but don't own the stock - for $100, at a strike price of $20, for 100 shares, you make money as long as the price of that stock is under $21.  You have a potential to make $100, because that's what you sold it for; if the price is under $20, it's not exercised, and you just get that $100, free.   But, on the other hand, if the stock goes up, you could potentially be out any amount of money.  If the stock trades at $24, you're out $400-100 = $300, right?  (Plus transaction costs.)   But what if it trades at $60?  Or $100?  Or $10000?  You're still out 100 * that amount, so in the latter case, $1 million.  It's not likely to trade at that point, but it could. If you were to trade ""at random"", you'd probably run into one of those types of situations.  That's because there are lots of potential trades out there that nobody expects anyone to take - but that doesn't mean that people wouldn't be happy to take your money if you offered it to them.   That's the reason your 16.66 vs 83.33 argument is faulty:  you're absolutely right that if there were a consistently losing line, that the consistently winning line would exist, but that requires someone that is willing to take the losing line.  Trades require two actors, one on each side; if you're willing to be the patsy, there's always someone happy to take advantage of you, but you might not get a patsy."


In this situation I would recommend figuring out about what you would need to pay in taxes for the year.  You have two figures (your salary and dependents) , but not others.  Will you contribute to a 401K, do you itemize deductions, etc...  If things are uncertain, I would figure my taxes as if I took the standard deduction.   For argument's sake let's assume that comes out to $7300.  I would then add $500 on to my total to cover potential increases in taxes/fees.  You can adjust this up or down based on your ability to absorb having to pay or the uncertainty in your first calcuation. So now $7800, divide by 26 (the amount of paychecks you receive in a year) = $300 Then I would utilize a payroll calculator to adjust my exemptions and additional witholding so my federal withholding is as close as possible to this number.   Or you can sit with your payroll department and do the same.


Havoc P's answer is good (+1). Also don't forget the other aspects of business income: state filing fees, county/city filing fees, business licenses, etc.  Are there any taxes you have to collect from your customers? If you expect to make more this year, then you should make estimated quarterly tax payments.  The first one for 2011 is due around the same time as your federal income tax filing.


"If I understand correctly, the Traditional IRA, if you have 401k with an employer already, has the following features: Actually, #1 and #2 are characteristics of Roth IRAs, not Traditional IRAs. Only #3 is a characteristic of a Traditional IRA. Whether you have a 401(k) with your employer or not makes absolutely no difference in how your IRAs are taxed for the vast majority of people. (The rules for IRAs are different if you have a very high income, though). You're allowed to have and contribute to both kinds of accounts. (In fact, I personally have both). Traditional IRAs are tax deferred (not tax-free as people sometimes mistakenly call them - they're very different), meaning that you don't have to pay taxes on the contributions or profits you make inside the account (e.g. from dividends, interest, profits from stock you sell, etc.). Rather, you pay taxes on any money you withdraw. For Roth IRAs, the contributions are taxed, but you never have to pay taxes on the money inside the account again. That means that any money you get over and above the contributions (e.g. through interest, trading profits, dividends, etc.) are genuinely tax-free. Also, if you leave any of the money to people, they don't have to pay any taxes, either. Important point: There are no tax-free retirement accounts in the U.S. The distinction between different kinds of IRAs basically boils down to ""pay now or pay later."" Many people make expensive mistakes in their retirement strategy by not understanding that point. Please note that this applies equally to Traditional and Roth 401(k)s as well. You can have Roth 401(k)s and Traditional 401(k)s just like you can have Roth IRAs and Traditional IRAs. The same terminology and logic applies to both kinds of accounts. As far as I know, there aren't major differences tax-wise between them, with two exceptions - you're allowed to contribute more money to a 401(k) per year, and you're allowed to have a 401(k) even if you have a high income. (By way of contrast, people with very high incomes generally aren't allowed to open IRAs). A primary advantage of a Traditional IRA is that you can (in theory, at least) afford to contribute more money to it due to the tax break you're getting. Also, you can defer taxes on any profits you make (e.g. through dividends or selling stock at a profit), so you can grow your money faster."


The issuer pays (negative money in this case) to the holder.  The person you sold your borrowed bond to gets this (negative) amount.  The person who you lent you the bond is eligible for that (negative) payment, they were the original holder of the bond.  When you return the bond you thus have to compensate the original holder.  Now turn around the cash flows and you're there. The new holder pays the issuer, the original holder pays you.


The forward curve for gold says little, in my opinion, about the expected price of gold. The Jan 16 price is 7.9% (or so) higher than the Jan 12 price. This reflects the current cost of money, today's low interest rates. When the short rates were 5%, the price 4 years out would be about 20% higher. No magic there. (The site you linked to was in German, so I looked and left. I'm certain if you pulled up the curve for platinum or silver, it would have the identical shape, that 7.9% rise over 4 years.) The yield curve, on the other hand,  Is said to provide an indication of the direction of the economy, a steep curve forecasting positive growth.


Problems with shorting  1. The price could become even more insanely high.   2. The stock you borrowed could be recalled leaving you sitting on a loss.  3. High borrowing costs.  4. Potentially limited loss potential e.g. when a takeover is announced, or when the company has a windfall, or fraudulently announces phony good news.  Shorting could still be useful as a niche 10% of your portfolio; the risk is limited that way. Also high short interest tend to make me look a bit harder before buying.


"I found this great resource at MarketWatch.com - a listing on online games that help parents teach kids about saving and finance, set up by age group. Here's an example of some of the content: For children six to nine: www.fleetkids.com, sponsored by the Fleet Bank, has great games -- like ""Buy lo, Sell hi"" and ""Chunka Change"" -- that teach kids about spending and saving. Kids can compete for prizes such as computers and backpacks for their schools."


You are comparing a risk-free cost with a risky return. If you can tolerate that level of risk (the ups and downs of the investment) for the chance that you'll come out ahead in the long-run, then sure, you could do that.   So the parameters to your equation would be: If you assume that the risky returns are normally distributed, then you can use normal probability tables to determine what risk level you can tolerate. To put some real numbers to it, take the average S&P 500 return of 10% and standard deviation of 18%.  Using standard normal functions, we can calculate the probability that you earn more than various interest rates: so even with a low 3% interest rate, there's roughly a 1 in 3 chance that you'll actually be worse off (the gains on your investments will be less than the interest you pay).  In any case there's a 3 in 10 chance that your investments will lose money.


>Entire families living in a 2 bedroom apartment, for example.  That's due to the fact that there isn't much land, same problem in hong kong.  However, at the very least 80% of them live in public housing so at least they're not getting gouged on rentals.


It depends on how much money it is going to save you, how secure your job is and how much risk is acceptable to you. The main problem with taking out a 401k loan for anything is that you have to pay it back within ~60 days of loosing your job which would be precisely when you need your savings the most and then you get the tough choice of using your savings to repay the 401k loan (assuming you have an emergency fund) or possibly not having enough money to live on until you find another job. If you don't have an emergency fund you are going to get stuck with a substantial tax bill 10% penalty plus taxes at your marginal rate. There are definitely advantages to avoiding PMI and you will probably get a pretty decent return on investment (mortgage interest rate + cost of PMI), but there are risks as well.


"Maybe a bit off topic, but I suggest reading ""Rich Dad Poor Dad"" by Robert Kiyosaki. An investment is something that puts money to your pocket. If your properties don't put money to your pocket (and this seems to be the case), then they're not an investment. Instead, they drain money from you pocket. Therefore you should instead turn these ""investments"" into real investments. Make everything to earn some money using them, not to earn money somewhere else to cover the loses they create. If that's not possible, get rid of them and find something that ""puts money into your pocket""."


I filed all my tax returns when I was abroad so they know how much I   made (just not how much I saved). I smell problems here. If you were compliant wrt to your filings, you must have filed FBAR forms and form 8938. Even if you were below the threshold for form 8938, you will probably be above it when you move back to the US - the threshold for people living in the US is much lower. Do I still need to declare it, even though I might not intend to use   this money to help my kids through college? I believe so. Here's what they want: Nothing there suggests that it is only limited to the accounts in the US or to the money you intend to use to help your kids through college.


See if there are any favorable tax treaties between your two countries. (check US state department - or find the nearest PWC, Deloitte, KPMG, these are global auditing firms that deal with international tax and compliance) A tax treaty could have possible goodies such as a lower more favorable tax or even a tax credit from. For instance, if you paid 28% tax in the US then your new country will give you a credit on the taxes owed to them. The point of tax treaties are to prevent double taxation, but in the effort to do so they often create their own new tax rates for transfers between countries. You'll be better off just paying the 28% US income tax on your 401k distribution. And using the post-tax money as you please. US citizens are on the hook for income tax several years after they leave the US.


If you had an agreement with your friend such that you could bring back a substantially similar car, you could sell the car and return a different one to him.  The nature of shares of stock is that, within the specified class, they are the same.  It's a fungible commodity like one pound of sand or a dollar bill.  The owner doesn't care which share is returned as long as a share is returned.   I'm sure there's a paragraph in your brokerage account terms of service eluding to the possibility of your shares being included in short sale transactions.


Selling one fund and buying another will incur capital gains tax on the sale for the amount of the gain. I'm not aware of any sort of exemption available due to you moving out of the country. However, long-term capital gains for low-tax-bracket taxpayers is 0%. As long as your total income including the gains fits within the 15% regular tax bracket, you don't pay any long-term capital gains. Options for you that I see to avoid taxes are: Note that even if you do sell it all, it's only the amount of gains that would take your income over the 15% normal tax bracket that would be taxed at the long-term rate of 15%, which may not end up being that much of a tax hit. It may be worth calculating just how bad it would be based on your actual income. Also note that all I'm saying here is for US federal income taxes. The state you most recently lived in may still charge taxes if you're still considered a resident there in some fashion, and I don't know if your new home's government may try to take a cut as well.


"The current mortgaged owner would typically not have the right to sell any portion of the house without approval from the bank. The bank doesn't ""own"" the house through the mortgage, but they do have a series of rights that, in some cases, look similar to ownership.  Remember that a mortgage is just a loan that uses a house as collateral, to reduce the risk to the lender in the event of default. If it was just a personal loan, without collateral, then there would be a much higher risk of default (and therefore the interest rate would be closer to 20% than 2%). But because the loan was taken with collateral, that collateral can't be sold without the bank's permission. If the bank allowed this to happen, then one risk would be exactly as you say - that the mortgagee stops paying the bank, and the bank no longer is able to recover the full value of the loan on selling the remaining 50% of the house owed as collateral."


As mbhunter said, extra payments of principal don't affect your taxes (except to the extent that you'll pay less interest, because the amount you owe interest on - the total balance/principal - is smaller).  If you want to reduce your taxes, you might pay into an IRA instead.


"The first consideration for the banking part of your portfolio is safety. In the United States that is FDIC protection, or the equivalent for a Credit Union. The second consideration is does it have the level of service you need. For this I mean the location of branches, ATMs, or its online services meet your needs for speed, accuracy, and ability to access or move the money as you need. The rest are then balanced on the extras. For your situation those extras include the ability to make free trades. For other it might be a discount on their mortgage. For others it is free checking.  In your current situation if the first two things are met, and you are using those extra benefits then don't change. For me the free trades wouldn't be a benefit, so any major degradation in the safety and service would cause me to leave. Keep in mind that free services exist to entice you to make a deposit: which they can then make money by lending it out; or they offer a free service to entice you to use a service they can charge you to use. All Free services come with a cost. I earned a completely paltry $3.33 YTD over the last 9 months on my   savings at my bank presumably in exchange for these ""free"" trades. Without knowing how much you had deposited in your savings account there is no way to know how much you could have made at the bank across the street. But with the low rates of the last decade there is not big money to be made off the emergency savings of a typical american family."


"The short answer is that the exchange of the stock in exchange for the elimination of a debt is a taxable exchange, and gains or losses are possible for the stock investor as well as the bank.   The somewhat longer answer is best summarized as noting that banks don't usually accept stocks as collateral, mostly because stock values are volatile and most banks are not equipped to monitor the risk involved but it is very much part of the business of stock brokers.   In the USA, as a practical matter I only know of stock brokerages offering loans against stock as part of the standard services of a ""margin account"". You can get a margin account at any US stock broker. The stockholder can deposit their shares in the margin account and then borrow around 50% of the value, though that is a bit much to borrow and a lower amount would be safer from sudden demands for repayment in the form of margin calls. In a brokerage account I can not imagine a need to repay a margin loan if the stocks dividends plus capital appreciation rises in value faster than the margin loan rate creates interest charges...  Trouble begins as the stock value goes down.  When the value of the loan exceeds a certain percentage of the stock value, which can depend on the stock and the broker's policy but is also subject to federal rules like Regulation T, the broker can call in the loan and/or take initiative to sell the stock to repay the loan.   Notice that this may result in a capital gain or loss, depending on the investor's tax basis which is usually the original cost of the stock.  Of course, this sale affects the taxes of the investor irregardless of who gets the money."


It has to do with return. I don't know if Canada has a matching feature on retirement accounts, but in the US many companies will match the first X% you put in. So for me, my first $5000 or so is matched 100%. I'll take that match over paying down any debt. Beyond that, of course it's a simple matter of rate of return. Why save in the bank at 2% when you owe at 10-18%?  One can make this as simple or convoluted as they like. My mortgage is a tax deduction so my 5% mortgage costs me 3.6%. I've continued to invest rather than pay the mortgage too early, as my retirement account is with pre-tax dollars. So $72 will put $100 in that account. Even in this last decade, bad as it was, I got more than 3.6% return.


Not really. You can have two bonds that have identical duration but vastly different convexity.   Pensions and insurance portfolio managers are most common buyers as they're trying to deal with liability matching and high convexity allows them to create a barbell around their projected liabilities.


For local retailers you will need to visit the store. For national retail chains you will need to get in contact with their purchasing departments. Either way, have a solid product with a good presentation. A lot of cold calls and sales presentations are ahead of you so master your elevator pitch as well as your 10-15 minute presentation. Best of luck to you!


It depends on what your investment goals are.  Are you investing for the short-term or the long-term?  What was your reason for investing in these stocks in the first place?  Timing short-term fluctuations in the market is very difficult, so if that's your goal, I wouldn't count on being able to sell and buy back in at exactly the right time.  Rather, I think you should think about what your investment rationale was in the first place, and whether or not that rationale still holds.  If it does, then hold on to the stocks.  If it doesn't, then sell.


"I look for buying a call option only at the money, but first understand the background above: Let's suppose X stock is being traded by $10.00 and it's January The call option is being traded by $0.20 with strike $11.00 for February. (I always look for 2% prize or more) I buy 100 stocks by $10.00 each and sell the option, earning $0.20 for each X stock. I will have to deliver my stocks by $11.00 (strike value agreed). No problem for me here, I took the prize plus the gain of $1.00. (continuing from item 3) I still can sell the option for the next month with strike equal or higher than that I bought. For instance, I can sell a call option of strike $10.00 and it might be worth to deliver stocks by $10.00 and take the prize. (continuing from item 3) Probably, it won't be possible to sell a call option with strike at the price that I paid for the stock, but that's not a problem. At the end of the option life (in February), the strike was $11.00 but the stock's price is $8.00. I got the $0.20 as prize and my stocks are free for trade again. I'll sell the call option for March with strike $9.00 (taking around 2% of prize). Well, I don't want to sell my stocks by $9.00 and make loss, right? But I'm selling the call option anyway. Then I wait till the price of the stock gets near the strike value (almost ATM) and I ""re-buy"" the option sold (Example: [StockX]C9 where C means month = March) and sell again the call option with higher strike to April (Example [StockX]D10, where D means month = April) PS.: At item 9 there should be no loss between the action of ""re-buy"" and sell to roll-out to the next month. When re-buying it with the stock's price near the strike, option value for March (C9) will be lower than when selling it to April (D10). This isn't any rule to be followed, this is just a conservative (I think they call it hedge) way to handle options and stocks. Few free to make money according to your goals and your style. The perfect rule is the one that meet your expectation, don't take the generalized rules too serious."


Now I'm trying to decide whether to find a managed fund, or use Vanguard ETFs. With a new trading account I can keep at least the initial move free of transaction charges, but ongoing additions would cost me the standard fee. I may want to move half of those funds into a mortgage deposit in a year. (maybe?) Most ETFs, like the stock market, exhibit significant volatility and, over short periods of time, substantial down-side risk. In other words, there is a significant chance that the value of your investment will be worth substantially less in a year from now. The likelihood of this being the case in, say, 10 years from now is much lower, and vanishingly small for a diversified portfolio. If you aren't confident you'll at least have the option of keeping most of your money invested for over a year, consider that the stock market may not be right for you, at least not as an investment vehicle. Regarding the things you'd like to learn; as the commenter said - that's a huge topic and I think you need to clarify your questions.


What are your goals in life?   If one of them is to appear wealthy then buying a high price import is a great place to start.  You certainly have the salary for it (congratulations BTW). If one of your goals is to build wealth, then why not buy a ~5000 to ~6000 car and have a goal to zero out that student loan by the end of the year?  You can still contribute to your 401k, and have a nice life style living on ~60K (sending 30 to the student loan). Edit: I graduated with a CS degree in '96 and have been working in the industry since '93.  When I started, demand was like it is now, rather insane.  It probably won't always be like that and I would prepare for some ups and downs in the industry. One of the things that encouraged me to lead a debt free lifestyle happened in 2008.  My employer cut salaries by 5%...no big deal they said.  Except they also cut support pay, bonuses, and 401K matching.  When the dust cleared my salary was cut 22%, and I was lucky as others were laid off.  If you are in debt a 22% pay cut hurts bad.


If it's money you can lose, and you're young, why not?  Another would be motifinvesting where you can invest in ideas as opposed to picking companies. However, blindly following other investors is not a good idea.  Big investors strategies might not be similar to yours, they might be looking for something different than you.  If you're going to do that, find someone with similar goals. Having investments, and a strategy, that you believe in and understand is paramount to investing.  It's that belief, strategy, and understanding that will give you direction.  Otherwise you're just going to follow the herd and as they say, sheep get slaughtered.


To follow up on Quid's comment, the share classes themselves will define what level of dividends are expected. Note that the terms 'common shares' and 'preferred shares' are generally understood terms, but are not as precise as you might believe.  There are dozens/hundreds of different characteristics that could be written into share classes in the company's articles of incorporation [as long as those characteristics are legal in corporate law in the company's jurisdiction]. So in answering your question there's a bit of an assumption that things are working 'as usual'. Note that private companies often have odd quirks to their share classes, things like weird small classes of shares that have most of the voting rights, or shares with 'shotgun buyback clauses'. As long as they are legal clauses, they can be used to help control how the business is run between various shareholders with competing interests. Things like parents anticipating future family infighting and trying to prevent familial struggle. You are unlikely to see such weird quirks in public companies, where the company will have additional regulatory requirements and where the public won't want any shock at unexpected share clauses. In your case, you suggested having a non-cumulative preferred share [with no voting rights, but that doesn't impact dividend payment]: There are two salient points left related to payout that the articles of incorporation will need to define for the share classes: (1) What is the redemption value for the shares? [This is usually equal to the cost of subscribing for the shares in the first place; it represents how much the business will need to pay the shareholder in the event of redemption / recall] (2) What is the stated dividend amount? This is usually defined at a rate that's at or a little above a reasonable interest rate at the time the shares are created, but defined as $ / share. For example, the shares could have $1 / share dividend payment, where the shares originally cost $50 each to subscribe [this would reflect a rate of payment of about 2%]. Typically by corporate law, dividends must be paid to preferred shares, to the extent required based on the characteristics of the share class [some preferred shares may not have any required dividends at all], before any dividends can be paid to common shares. So if $10k in dividends is to be paid, and total preferred shares require $15k of non-cumulative dividends each year, then $0 will be paid to the common shares. The following year, $15k of dividends will once again need to be paid to the preferred shares, before any can be paid to the common shares.


The simplest way is just to compute how much money you'd have to have invested elsewhere to provide a comparable return. For example, if you assume a safe interest rate of 2.3% per year, you would need to have about $520,000 to get $1,000/month.


>Not to mention that Japan has a very good savings rate.   Remember they buy a lot of bonds with their savings, Japanese bonds. This shows up as debt on the ledger.  People really need to learn about government debt in general.


Just for op's reference. A deferred wage entry would be something along the lines of the following scenario: you contract with a worker to perform some work at some point in the future, you would then book deferred wages for the amount to liabilities and deferred labor for that amount to assets, which would increase both and leave equity unchanged.