I assume US as mhoran_psprep edited, although I'm not sure IRS necessarily means US. (It definitely used to also include Britain's Inland Revenue, but they changed.)  (US) Stockbrokers do not normally withhold on either dividends/interest/distributions or realized capital gains, especially since gains might be reduced or eliminated by later losses. (They can be required to apply backup withholding to dividends and interest; don't ask how I know :-) You are normally required to pay most of your tax during the year, defined as within 10% or $1000 whichever is more, by withholding and/or estimated payments. Thus if the tax on your income including your recent gain will exceed your withholding by 10% and $1000, you should either adjust your withholding or make an estimated payment or some combination, although even if you have a job the last week of December is too late for you to adjust withholding significantly, or even to make a timely estimated payment if 'earlier in the year' means in an earlier quarter as defined for tax (Jan-Mar, Apr-May, June-Aug, Sept-Dec). See https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/estimated-taxes and for details its link to Publication 505. But a 'safe harbor' may apply since you say this is your first time to have capital gains. If you did not owe any income tax for last year (and were a citizen or resident), or (except very high earners) if you did owe tax and your withholding plus estimated payments this year is enough to pay last year's tax, you are exempt from the Form 2210 penalty and you have until the filing deadline (normally April 15 but this year April 18 due to weekend and holiday) to pay. The latter is likely if your job and therefore payroll income and withholding this year was the same or nearly the same as last year and there was no other big change other than the new capital gain. Also note that gains on investments held more than one year are classified as long-term and taxed at lower rates, which reduces the tax you will owe (all else equal) and thus the payments you need to make. But your wording 'bought and sold ... earlier this year' suggests your holding was not long-term, and short-term gains are taxed as 'ordinary' income. Added: if the state you live in has a state income tax similar considerations apply but to smaller amounts. TTBOMK all states tax capital gains (and other investment income, other than interest on exempt bonds), and don't necessarily give the lower rates for long-term gains. And all states I have lived in have 'must have withholding or estimated payments' rules generally similar to the Federal ones, though not identical.


"Your wages are an expense to your employer and are therefore 100% tax deductible in the business income.  The company should not be paying tax on that, so your double-tax scenario, as described, isn't really correct. [The phrase ""double taxation"" with respect to US corporations usually comes into play with dividends.  In that case, however, it's the shareholders (owners) that pay double.  The answer to ""why?"" in that case can only be ""because it's the law.""]"


Yes, you are. When someone is bankrupt their assets are being sold to satisfy the creditors. Your note is an asset, and will be sold. You'll be making payments to the entity that buys it.


"I would suggest you forget everything you learned in economics. The only applicable knowledge is Accounting 101.  Step 1: An accrual basis financial statement. There is no step 2 if you don't do this. Most small business do everything cash basis. Simpler, cheaper but useless for analysis. You would get better answers from the local fortune teller than a cash basis statement.   Make one change from the general rules. If you have debt or are paying interest for inventory include that in your cost of sales. This is actually proper but the rule is little known and often ignored. Interest on debt up to the amount of inventory is a cost of inventory.  Step 2: Gross profit. If you seem to be working hard and still losing money it may be because you are selling products for less than they cost you. In this case the more you sell the more you lose. So suggestions like advertising or doing anything to increase sales are actually destructive.  Step 3 Price products at the level necessary to turn a profit at current sales and overhead. 'When we have enough sales we will make a profit"" is the philosophy of a start up business. It is toxic for a going concern.  Step 4 If sales are unsustainable at the price that produces a profit have the courage to sell or close the business. I have seen people waste their lives on futile endeavors just because they can't make that tough decision.  Finally Step 0: Ignore all other suggestions but this. They are well meaning but ill informed. To reiterate, growing sales while losing money on every transaction is a huge mistake. Trends, books, charts and graphs, analytics and market research are the tools of con-men and fortune tellers. Business is arithmetic and nothing more or less.  FYI if I don't get at least one upvote, this is the last time I am giving my valuable professional advice away for free on reddit. Folks will have to rely on the suggestions of their fellow college kids."


"Though it seems unintuitive, you should rationally ignore the past performance of this stock (including the fact that it's at its 52-week high) and focus exclusively on factors that you believe should affect it moving forward.  If you think it's going to go up even further,  more than the return on your other options for where to put the money, keep the stock.  If you think it's peaked and will be going down, now's a good time to sell. To put it another way: if you didn't already have this stock, would you buy it today? Your choice is just about the same: you can choose between a sum of cash equal to the present market value of the shares, OR the shares.   Which do you think is worth more? You also mentioned that you only have 10 stocks in the portfolio.  Some are probably a larger percentage than others, and this distribution may be different than what you want in your portfolio.  It may be time to do some rebalancing, which could involve selling some shares where your position is too large (as a % of your portfolio) and using the proceeds toward one or more categories you're not as invested in as you would like to be.  This might be a good opportunity to increase the diversity in your portfolio. If part of your reward and motivation for trading is emotional, not purely financial, you could sell now, mark it as a ""win,"" and move on to another opportunity.  Trading based on emotions is not likely to optimize your future balance, but not everybody is into trading or money for money's sake.  What's going to help you sleep better at night and help boost your quality of life?  If holding the stock will make you stress and regret a missed opportunity if it goes down, and selling it will make you feel happy and confident even if it still goes up more (e.g. you interpret that as further confirming that you made a good pick in the first place), you might decide that the risk of suboptimal financial returns (from emotion-based trading) is acceptable.  As CQM points out, you could also set a trailing sell order to activate only when the stock is a certain percentage or dollar amount below whatever it peaks at between the time you set the order and the time it fires/expires; the activation price will rise with the stock and hold as it falls."


You're correct. The VIX price is calculated based on the price of all of SPX options which are expiring (IIRC 2) weeks after the expiration of that VIX contract. It's an index measuring implied vol not realized vol.  VIX futures/options are calculated slightly differently than the VIX index.


">Title leads one to believe that one complaint call cost a company four million bucks.  Actually the title is ambiguous; it merely implies that the complain call was *worth* $4 million.  You chose to *infer* that the end result was a ""cost"" rather than a ""gain""."


Are financial institutions less likely to lend me money because of my age Yes.  But they are especially unlikely to loan you money because you have little income.   or because they know I avoid interest by paying things off aggressively? This won't affect them.  But you might ask yourself how much credit history you have.  Credit history can include all of loans, credit cards, rent, utilities, etc.  You mention three loans.  But you don't mention rent or utilities.  You may simply not have much credit history, even if what you do have is good.   But again, the biggest thing that they will look at is your income history.  If you have a small income, then it doesn't matter what your payment history is.  They don't want to loan money to people who need money.  They want to loan money to people who don't need to borrow but are instead bringing a future purchase into the present.   The ideal recipient is someone who has a high income and spends it all every month.  Such a person is likely to borrow heavily but be able to keep up the payments.   Obsessing about your ability to borrow is probably the wrong approach.  Instead focus on how you can meet your goals without borrowing.  Eventually your ability to pay will catch up.  Then they'll offer you money.  Of course, you might not need it then.   Note that when I say little income, I'm talking about their perspective.  You may be fully on track and making decent money or even very good money for your age.  But they're looking for people who are mature in their careers and regularly bringing home large sums but who spend it faster than they can get it.


That would have been a good idea.  They don't charge interest on a $0 balance, but if you payoff your account after the cycle date, there is a hidden balance and that balance will accrue interest. It is only a few cents a day.  I just don't think it is legal for them to refuse to provide you a payoff quote mid cycle. I'm almost certain. When I worked for Discover it was a key point in training to not give the wrong amount and to make sure to use the calculator in the system to quote a daily balance, how much it goes up per day, and how much they should send if they were mailing the payment, giving consideration for the time it takes to receive/process the payment.


"Story printed literally as the only thing that can hold on value to the currency..   OK so I'm printing unlimited money to pay off my debt,  so hey debtor I can either give you this useless currency or I can't pay..   Japan is heading for default,  their currency is only holding value because people have ""Hope"", the only reason for hope is because this article ""says"" people don't know..  They know  .."


sheegaon's reply looks fine to me, a HELOC can usually be set up for a minimal ($50?) fee, and is currently a pretty low rate, mine is 2.5%.  If this doesn't appeal to you, my other suggestion is a 401(k) loan. While this is usually a last resort and 'not' recommended, a short term use may make sense. The rate is low, and you can pay in back in full after moving into the new house.


"Actually in Finland on some bank + debit/credit card + online retailer combinations you type in your card details as you normally do, but after clicking ""Buy"" you get directed to your own bank's website which asks you to authenticate yourself with online banking credentials. It also displays the amount of money and to which account it is being paid to. After authentication you get directed back to the retailer's website. Cannot say why banks in US haven't implemented this."


"In some sense, the share repurchasing program is better if the company does not foresee the same profit levels down the road.  Paying a dividend for several years and then suddenly not paying or reducing a dividend is viewed as a ""slap in the face"" by investors.  Executing a share repurchase program one year and then not the next is not viewed as negatively. From an investor's standpoint, I would say a dividend is preferred over a share repurchase program for a similar reason.  Typically companies that pay a dividend have been doing so for quite some time and even increasing it over time as the company increases profits.  So, it can be assumed that if a company starts paying a dividend, it will do so for the long-run."


"You're right about your suspicions. I'm not a professional (I suggest you talk to a real one, a one with CPA, EA or Attorney credentials and license in your State), but I would be very cautious in this case. The IRS will look at all the facts and circumstances to make a claim, but my guess would be that the initial claim would be for this to be taxable income for your husband. He'd have to prove it to be otherwise. It does seem to be related to his performance, and I doubt that had they not known him through his employment, they'd give him such a gift. I may be wrong. So may be an IRS Revenue Officer. But I'd bet he'd think the same. Did they give ""gifts"" like that to anyone else? If they did - was it to other employees or they gave similar gifts to all their friends and family? Did those who gave your husband a gift file a gift tax return? Had they paid the gift tax? Were they principles in the partnership or they were limited partners (i.e.: not the ones with authority to make any decision)? Was your husband instrumental in making their extraordinary profit, or his job was not related to the profits these people made? These questions are inquiring about the facts and circumstances of the transaction. Based on what he can find out, and other potential information, your husband will have to decide whether he can reasonably claim that it was a gift. Beware: unreasonable claims lead to equally unreasonable penalties and charges. IRS and your State will definitely want to know more about this transaction, its not an amount to slide under the radar. This is not a matter where you can rely on a free opinions written by amateurs who don't know the whole story. You (or, rather, your husband) are highly encouraged to hire a paid professional - a CPA, EA (enrolled agent) or tax attorney with enough experience in fighting gift vs income characterization issues against the IRS (and the State, don't forget your State). An experienced professional may be able to identify something in the facts and the circumstances of the situation that would lead to reducing the tax bill or shifting it to the partners, but it is not something you do on your own."


"You're calculating it exactly right. I wrote about this one on my blog a while ago. Lesson learned is that nothing comes for free, and you can take the saying ""there are no free meals"" quite literally in this case. edit To address the comments about tips... I don't believe tips should be compulsory. Its my reward to the server for outstanding service. Not part of the cost of the meal. If its part of the server's salary - then I prefer not to dine in such a place (and at least in some places its illegal to consider tips as part of the salary). The coupon in question explicitly requests tipping the server. Thus, the tips with or without the coupon are still expected, and that's why I'm not taking them into the consideration. According to the laws of the State of California (where I live), mandatory charges, such as the 18% gratuity charge required by the coupon, are not tips, and don't have to be passed on to the employees. Thus, employees will still expect my tips on the bill, so I'm basically required to tip twice, when using the coupon."


"The ""pure play"" would be using interest rate options.  http://www.cboe.com/Products/InterestRateOptionsSpecs.aspx"


"While I know some people prefer handling things more ""manually"", I really like automating everything possible. To the greatest extent possible, my deposits automatically go into my Checking account and my bills automatically withdraw from it. That way, I never have to worry about accidentally paying a bill late, and my financial life just runs mostly on its own. There are a couple things to be wary of when automating one's financial life:"


The fact that you are planning to move abroad does not affect the decision to contribute to a 401(k). The reason for this is that after you leave your employer, you can roll all the money over from your 401(k) into a self-directed traditional IRA. That money can stay invested until retirement, and it doesn't matter where you are living before or after retirement age.  So, when deciding whether or not to use a 401(k), you need to look at the details of your employer's plan: Does your employer offer a match? If so, you should definitely take advantage of it.  Are there good investments available inside the 401(k)? Some plans offer very limited options. If you can't find anything good to invest in, you don't want to contribute anything beyond the match; instead, contribute to an IRA, where you can invest in a fund that you like.  The other reason to use a 401(k) is that the contribution limits can be higher. If you want to invest more than you are allowed to in an IRA, the 401(k) might allow that.  In your case, since there is no match, it is up to you whether you want to participate or not. An IRA will allow more flexibility in investing options. If you need to invest more than your IRA limit, the 401(k) might allow that. When you leave your employer, you should probably roll any 401(k) money into an IRA.


I'm assuming your talking USA. There are two ways to look. If you know you should pay on the cap gains, the best way to handle that separately from your salary is to file a quarterly tax payment.  That, I understand, is what the self-employed have to do. I'm in the situation where at some point, probably this year, the company that employs me will be bought out, and I will owe capital gains taxes on my shares gobbled up in the buy-out.  It's a cash-for-stock transaction.  So, in my case, I've just adjusted my W-4 to take advantage of the safe-harbor provision related to taxes I payed in 2016 and my salary.  The details vary depending on your situation, but in my case, I've calculated what it will take in W-4 allowances to make sure I pay 110% of my 2016 tax payment (after refund).  I'm not worrying about what the actual taxes on those shares of company stock will be, because I've met the rules for safe-harbor. Safe harbor just means that they can't penalize you for under-withholding or underpayment.  It doesn't mean I won't have to write a check on april 15.


You would be extremely delusional if you think the average joe could go to Princeton, and then get a senior executive position at age 29. I also would know because Im also privileged like David and so are most of my friends. I don't I have a single friend that is paying for their own tuition out of pocket.  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/fashion/weddings/david-knopf-edwin-marrero-weddings.html


Your post seems to read as if you want to invest only in real estate rental properties as a start because they will be a reliable investment guaranteed to generate profits that you will be plowing back into buying even more rental properties, but you are willing to consider (possibly in later years) other forms of investment (in real estate) that will not require active  participation in the management of the rental properties. While many participants here do own rental real estate and even manage it entirely, for most people, that is only a small part of their investment portfolio, and I suspect that hardly any will recommend real estate as the only investment the way you seem to want to do. Also, you might want to look more closely at the realities of rental real estate  operations before jumping in. Things are not necessarily as rosy as they appear to you now.  Not all your units will be rented all the time, and the rental income might not always be enough to cover the mortgage payments and the property taxes and the insurance payments and the repairs and maintenance and ... Depreciation of the property is another matter that you might not have thought about. That being said, you can invest in real estate through real estate investment trusts (REITs) or through limited partnerships where you have only a passive role.  There are even mutual funds that invest in REITs or in REIT indexes.


"I don't think you have your head in the right space - you seem to be thinking of these lifecycle funds like they're an annuity or a pension, but they're not. They're an investment. Specifically, they're a mutual fund that will invest in a collection of other mutual funds, which in turn invest in stock and bonds. Stocks go up, and stocks go down. Bonds go up, and bonds go down. How much you'll have in this fund next year is unknowable, much less 32 years from now. What you can know, is that saving regularly over the next 32 years and investing it in a reasonable, and diversified way in a tax sheltered account like that Roth will mean you have a nice chunk of change sitting there when you retire. The lifecycle funds exist to help you with that ""reasonable"" and ""diversified"" bit.They're meant to be one stop shopping for a retirement portfolio. They put your money into a diversified portfolio, then ""age"" the portfolio allocations over time to make it go from a high risk, (potentially) high reward allocation now to a lower risk, lower reward portfolio as you approach retirement. The idea is is that you want to shoot for making lots of money now, but when you're older, you want to focus more on keeping the money you have. Incidentally, kudos for getting into seriously saving for retirement when you're young. One of the biggest positive effects you can have on how much you retire with is simply time. The more time your money can sit there, the better. At 26, if you're putting away 10 percent into a Roth, you're doing just fine. If that 5k is more than 10 percent, you'll do better than fine. (That's a rule of thumb, but it's based on a lot of things I've read where people have gamed out various scenarios, as well as my own, cruder calculations I've done in the past)"


"The short answer is the annualised volatility over twenty years should be pretty much the same as the annualised volatility over five years. For independent, identically distributed returns the volatility scales proportionally. So for any number of monthly returns T, setting the annualization factor m = 12 annualises the volatility.  It should be the same for all time scales.  However, note the discussion here: https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/7496/7178 Scaling volatility [like this] only is mathematically correct when the   underlying price model is driven by Geometric Brownian motion which   implies that prices are log normally distributed and returns are   normally distributed. Particularly the comment: ""its a well known fact that volatility is overestimated when scaled over long periods of time without a change of model to estimate such ""long-term"" volatility."" Now, a demonstration.  I have modelled 12,000 monthly returns with mean = 3% and standard deviation = 2, so the annualised volatility should be Sqrt(12) * 2 = 6.9282.   Calculating annualised volatility for return sequences of various lengths (3, 6, 12, 60 months etc.) reveals an inaccuracy for shorter sequences.  The five-year sequence average got closest to the theoretically expected figure (6.9282), and, as the commenter noted ""volatility is [slightly] overestimated when scaled over long periods of time"". Annualised volatility for varying return sequence lengths  Edit re. comment Reinvesting returns does not affect the volatility much.  For instance, comparing some data I have handy, the Dow Jones Industrial Average Capital Returns (CR) versus Net Returns (NR).  The return differences are somewhat smoothed, 0.1% each month, 0.25% every third month.  More erratic dividend reinvestment would increase the volatility."


"Specifically, what does my broker mean when they say an asset or investment strategy is high risk?  In this context, it is a statement based on past events and probability. It is based on how confident s/he is that the investment will perform to certain benchmarks. This is a math question, primarily (with some opinion mixed in, granted). This is where the Sharpe ratio and others fit well. How am I supposed to answer a question like ""rate your risk tolerance from low to high""? This is the hard question, as you have seen. In this context, risk tolerance is derived from your current position and future plans (goals). This is a planning, goal setting, and strategy question, primarily (with some math mixed in, granted). How vulnerable is your current position and future plans to an under-performing investment? If you answer ""very"", then you choose investments that have a lower probability of under-performing.  The Sharpe ratio has little to do with answering this question. It is a tool to find investments that better match your answer to this question."


"US-Australian tax treaty limits the tax the US can levy on interest payments to Australian residents at 10%. However, that is the ""worst"" situation. There are several exempted situations which your specific example may fall into where you wouldn't need to deal with the US taxes at all. I suggest contacting a tax accountant proficient in that treaty and the Australian tax law. You will still be obviously paying taxes in Australia."


Why can't the Fed simply bid more than the bond's maturity value to lower interest rates below zero? The FED could do this but then it would have to buy all the bonds in the market since all other market participants would not be willing to lend money to the government only to receive less money back in the future.  Not everyone has the ability to print unlimited amounts of dollars :)


Using your credit card: Applying for a store credit card: In general it is far better to not buy bigger items like a computer until you can pay cash, or pay for it on credit card (to get reward points) and then pay off the card the next month so you don't pay interest.


"In theory, the idea is that diversified assets will perform differently in different circumstances, spreading your risk around. Whether that still functions in practice is a decent question, as the ""truth"" of most probability based arguments for diversification rely on the different assets being at least somewhat uncorrelated. This article suggests that might not be true. Specifically: The correlations we note among industry sectors are profoundly and dysfunctionally high. and  Gold and silver traders have gotten too used to the negative correlation trade with stocks. This is, in fact, an unusual relationship for precious metals tostocks. The correlation should actually be zero."


"Related to this question: I came across a post at The Financial Planning Exchange* titled ""The Top 10 Ways To Tell If You're Working With A Really Good Financial Planner."" Here are a few tips I particularly liked: (* site is no longer available) 4. Make sure the planner is going to   work with you on a Fiduciary basis.   This means that they are going to   recommend only what is in your best   interest. A planner who tries to sell   you a product is generally a red flag   that they aren't looking out for your   best interests.   [...] 8. Interview the prospective planner   that you are about to hire. Understand   how they think, what their speciality   is, and most importantly how they are   going to get paid for their services.   Be very very careful with a planner   who is going to provide you with a   free financial plan as that person   more often than not has a motivation   to sell you something.   [..] 10. Last but not least, go to a person   who works hand in hand with financial   planners like an accountant or estate   planning attorney for a referral.   Accountants and estate planning/tax   attorneys know the difference between   a good and bad planner. Chances are   they are a client of the person   they'll refer you to."


Traditional IRA contributions can be made if you  have compensation and the amount of the contribution is limited to the smaller of your compensation and $5500 ($6000 if age 50 or more). Note that compensation (which generally means earnings form working) is not just what appears on a W-2 form as salary or wages; it can be  earnings from self-employment too, as well as commissions, alimony etc (but not earnings from property, pensions and annuities, certain types of partnership income) You must also not have attained age 70.5 in the year for which the contribution is made.  Even if you don't have any compensation of your own, you can nonetheless make a Traditional IRA contribution if your spouse has compensation as long as you are filing a joint tax return with your spouse. For spouses filing a joint return, the  limits are still the same $5500/$6000 for each spouse, and the sum total of Traditional IRA contributions for both spouses also must not exceed the sum total of earned income of both spouses. The age limits etc are all still applicable. Note that none of this says anything about whether the contributions are deductible.  Everyone meeting the above requirements is eligible to make contributions to a Traditional IRA; whether the contributions can be deducted from current income depends on the income:  those with high enough incomes cannot deduct the contribution. This is different from Roth IRAs to which people with high incomes are not permitted to make a contribution at all. Finally, the source of the cash you contribute to the IRA can be the proceeds of the stock sale if you like; you are not required to prove that the cash received from compensation is what you sent to the IRA custodian. Read Publication 590 (available on the IRS website www.irs.gov) if you need an authoritative reference.


Agree with some of the posts above - Barchart is a good source for finding unusual options activity and also open interest -https://www.barchart.com/options/open-interest-change


"A brief review of the financial collapses in the last 30 years will show that the following events take place in a fairly typical cycle: Overuse of that innovation (resulting in inadequate supply to meet demand, in most cases) Inadequate capacity in regulatory oversight for the new volume of demand, resulting in significant unregulated activity, and non-observance of regulations to a greater extent than normal Confusion regarding shifting standards and regulations, leading to inadequate regulatory reviews and/or lenient sanctions for infractions, in turn resulting in a more aggressive industry ""Gaming"" of investment vehicles, markets and/or buyers to generate additional demand once the market is saturated ""Chickens coming home to roost"" - A breakdown in financial stability, operational accuracy, or legality of the actions of one or more significant players in the market, leading to one or more investigations A reduction in demand due to the tarnished reputation of the instrument and/or market players, leading to an anticipation of a glut of excess product in the market ""Cold feet"" - Existing customers seeking to dump assets, and refusing to buy additional product in the pipeline, resulting in a glut of excess product ""Wasteland"" - Illiquid markets of product at collapsed prices, cratering of associated portfolio values, retirees living below subsistence incomes Such investment bubbles are not limited to the last 30 years, of course; there was a bubble in silver prices (a 700% increase through one year, 1979) when the Hunt brothers attempted to corner the market, followed by a collapse on Silver Thursday in 1980.   The ""poster child"" of investment bubbles is the Tulip Mania that gripped the Netherlands in the early 1600's, in which a single tulip bulb was reported to command a price 16 times the annual salary of a skilled worker. The same cycle of events took place in each of these bubbles as well. Templeton's caution is intended to alert new (especially younger) players in the market that these patterns are doomed to repeat, and that market cycles cannot be prevented or eradicated; they are an intrinsic effect of the cycles of supply and demand that are not in synch, and in which one or both are being influenced by intermediaries. Such influences have beneficial effects on short-term profits for the players, but adverse effects on the long-term viability of the market's profitability for investors who are ill-equipped to shed the investments before the trouble starts."


"Well a definitive answer would require a lot of information.  Instead of posting that kind of info online, you should take a look at the instructions for Form 2210 and in particular ""Schedule AI -- Annualized Income Installment Method,"" which corrects the penalty for highly variable income.   Using this form you will likely be able to avoid the penalty, but it is hard to know for sure."


"Understand your own risk tolerance and discipline. From Moneychimp we can see different market results -  This is a 15 year span, containing what was arguably one of the most awful decades going. A full 10 year period with a negative return. Yet, the 15 year return was a 6.65% CAGR. You'd net 5.65% after long term cap gains. Your mortgage is likely costing ~4% or 3% after tax (This is not applicable to my Canadian friends, I understand you don't deduct interest). In my not so humble opinion, I'd pay off the highest rate debts first (unlike The David followers who are happy to pay off tens of thousands of dollars in 0% interest debt before the large 18% debt) and invest at the highest rate I'd get long term. The problem is knowing when to flip from one to the other.  Here's food for thought - The David insists on his use of the 12% long term market return. The last 100 years have had an average 11.96% return, but you can't spend average, the CAGR, the real compound rate was 10.06%. Why would he recommend paying off a sub 3% loan while using 12% for his long term planning (All my David remarks are not applicable to Canadian members, you all probably know better than to listen to US entertainers)?  I am retired, and put my money where my mouth is. The $200K I still owe on my mortgage is offset by over $400K in my 401(k). The money went in at 25%/28% pretax, has grown over these past 20 years, and comes out at 15% to pay my mortgage each month. No regrets. Anyone starting out now, and taking a 30 year mortgage, but putting the delta to a 15 year mortgage payment into their 401(k) is nearly certain to have far more in the retirement account 15 years hence than their remaining balance on the loan, even after taxes are considered. Even more if this money helps them to get the full matching, which too many miss.  All that said, keep in mind, the market is likely to see a correction or two in the next 15 years, one of which may be painful. If that would keep you up at night, don't listen to me. If a fixed return of 4% seems more appealing than a 10% return with a 15% standard deviation, pay the mortgage first.  Last - if you have a paid off house but no job, the town still wants its property tax, and the utilities still need to be paid. If you lose your job with $400K in your 401(k)/IRA but have a $200K mortgage, you have a lot of time to find a new job or sell the house with little pressure from the debt collectors.  (To answer the question in advance - ""Joe, at what mortgage rate do you pay it off first?"" Good question. I'd deposit to my 401(k) to grab matching deposits first, and then if the mortgage was anywhere north of 6%, prioritize that. This would keep my chances at near 100% of coming out ahead.)"


Another way to look at this is if we separate the owner's account from the business's account.  At the start of the year, the owner puts $9 into the business account to get the business started. At the end of the first day, the business account has $10, and at the end of the second day, the business account has $11.  The owner doesn't need to add any more of his own money into the business account. At the end of the 365th day, the business will have $374, which is $365 profit + $9 investment.  Assuming the business has no other expenses, the business will calculate profit for the year like this: The author is making a strange point. The two numbers he is talking about are two different quantities. The business owner's return on investment is $365 / $9 = 4056%.  But the business's profit margin is $365 / $3650 = 10%.  Both are useful numbers when running the business. I disagree with the author's insinuation that a business is doing something tricky when calculating profit margin. Remember that, in addition to the business owner's monetary investment, he worked every day for a year to earn that $365.


"Since you did not treat the house as a QBU, you have to use USD as your functional currency.  To calculate capital gains, you need to calculate the USD value at the time of purchase using the exchange rate at the time of purchase and the USD value at the time of sale using the exchange rate at the time of sale.  The capital gain / loss is then the difference between the two.  This link describes it in more detail and provides some references: http://www.maximadvisors.com/2013/06/foreign-residence/ That link also discusses additional potential complications if you have a mortgage on the house. This link gives more detail on the court case referenced in the above link: http://www.uniset.ca/other/cs5/93F3d26.html The court cases references Rev. Rul 54-105.  This link from the IRS has some details from that (https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/0303021.pdf): Rev. Rul. 54-105, 1954-1 C.B. 12, states that for purposes of determining   gain, the basis and selling price of property acquired by a U.S. citizen living in a foreign country should be expressed in United States dollars at the rates of exchange prevailing as of the dates of purchase and sale of the property,   respectively. The text of this implies it is for U.S. citizen is living in a foreign country, but the court case makes it clear that it also applies in your scenario (house purchased while living abroad but now residing in the US): Appellants agree that the 453,374 pounds received for their residence should be translated into U.S. dollars at the $1.82 exchange rate prevailing at the date of sale. They argue, however, that the 343,147 pound adjusted cost basis of the residence, consisting of the 297,500 pound purchase price and the 45,647 pounds paid for capital improvements, likewise should be expressed in U.S. dollar terms as of the date of the sale. Appellants correctly state that, viewed “in the foreign currency in which it was transacted,” the purchase generated a 110,227 pound gain as of the date of the sale, which translates to approximately $200,000 at the $1.82 per pound exchange rate. ... However fair and reasonable their argument may be, it amounts to an untenable attempt to convert their “functional currency” from the U.S. dollar to the pound sterling. ... Under I.R.C. § 985(b)(1), use of a functional currency other than the U.S. dollar is restricted to qualified business units (""QBU""s). ... appellants correctly assert that their residence was purchased “for a pound-denominated value” while they were “living and working in a pound-denominated economy,” ... And since appellants concede that the purchase and sale of their residence was not carried out by a QBU, the district court properly rejected their plea to treat the pound as their functional currency."


"You can report it as ""hobby"" income, and then you won't be paying self-employment taxes. You can also deduct the blog-related expenses from that income (subject to the 2% limit though). See this IRS pub on the ""hobby"" income."


If i am not wrong, any business activities such should be declared on Year End Tax filing. If your friend is going to own that website either it is commercial or nonprofit, he has to declare in the year end taxation.


Buy one and use it but never spend more than you can pay off at the end of the month.  Also, remember that the length of credit affects your rating too, so don't go canceling cards and/or getting new ones every time a new gimmick comes along.


I'm sorry, but who pressured the appraiser to overstate the value of the house by threatening him with a loss of future business? I'm pretty sure I hired him but the lender threatened him. After I only had one house for him to do. You're missing the bigger picture


Their motivation should be the same as yours, just moderated for the fact that they don't have ownership.  The fairest thing is likely a percentage of revenue (.5 moving up to 1 or higher depending on competency, off of gross, not net) plus getting some of the expense account for lunches and whatnot when something big gets done.    This will also make them less likely to leave when other offers or opportunities come around.  Retaining the best staff you can possibly get will almost certainly pay for itself ten times over with happy clients who don't have to deal with bureaucratic bullshit, and when they do, they know the person who is responsible for it is likable and competent, and don't complain as much.


You don't really have a lot of money, and that isn't a criticism as much as that you are limited to diversification.  For example, I would estimate you can only have one or two stocks for a buy-write scheme.  Secondly you may be only to buy one fund with a high minimum investment, and a second fund with a smaller minimum investment.  Thirdly there is not a whole lot of money to make a large difference. One options might be to look at iShares since your are with Fidelity.  Trading those are commission free and the minimum investment is one share.  They offer many sector funds. Since you were in a CD ladder you might be looking for stability of principle.  If so you can look at USMV and PFF.  If you can tolerate a little more volatility DGRO. Having said that you seem interested in doing some buy-writes.  Why not mix and match?  Pick a stock, like INTC (for example not a recommendation), and buy-write with half the money and some combination of iShares for the rest.


Right! He actually plans on selling it and getting a car to save on fuel and cut down the payment a few hundred a month. The problem is, he bought it last June and we still like nearly a year before we are allowed to trade it in. But we are more than ready for that day to come! Lol


Interesting.  How would they account for it? Monthly? And if so do they modify the cost basis for each lot for the month and then restate?   It's hard to imagine they do that.   I have a million questions regarding this topic do you know where in the regs it is covered?


"As I understand your scenario, you paid the contractor twice for cabinets - Once by paying the $20k in cash on the original contract and once ""in-kind"" by providing the cabinets yourself.  The $20k that you got from the contractor is not income to you, it's just a refund of your overpayment. I don't think you need to report that at all.  Just make sure that you can document that the check that you got back from the contractor matches what you paid for the cabinets and keep that record."


"If you have income - it should appear on your tax return. If you are a non-resident, that would be 1040NR, with the eBay income appearing on line 21. Since this is unrelated to your studies, this income will not be covered by the tax treaties for most countries, and you'll pay full taxes on it. Keep in mind that the IRS may decide that you're actually having a business, in which case you'll be required to attach Schedule C to your tax return and maybe pay additional taxes (mainly self-employment). Also, the USCIS may decide that you're actually having a business, regardless of how the IRS sees it, in which case you may have issues with your green card. For low income from occasional sales, you shouldn't have any issues. But if it is something systematic that you spend significant time on and earn significant amounts of money - you may get into trouble. What's ""systematic"" and how much is ""significant"" is up to a lawyer to tell you."


"Investing in a business can be daunting and risky, so it is not for everyone. The most common pitfalls are mentioned here:  Beyond that:  It all sounds a bit like ""Don't trust anyone"" and sadly, this is true when there's a lot of money involved. So be prepared and do your homework, this sometimes will save you more money than you gain with your investments :) Good luck!"


"If you are hard-working Japanese or German, it takes less than 10 years. This is with little investment from outside.  Actually, think about it this way: before the devastation, Japan and Germany were thriving economies to begin with.  In comparison, no matter how much money you throw at Afghanistan, Iraq, or ""Palestinians"", they will not have proper infrastructure and economy, before and after the devastation, DESPITE no need for outside investment because they have plenty of oil and minerals to sell."


"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2017/06/12/Public-Investment-Scaling-up-and-Debt-Sustainability-The-Case-of-Energy-Sector-Investments-44943) reduced by 50%. (I'm a bot) ***** > The views expressed in IMF Working Papers are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the IMF, its Executive Board, or IMF management.  > This paper proposes a bottom-up approach to assess large public investments that are potentially self-financing and reflect their impact in macro-fiscal projections that underpin the IMF&#039;s Debt Sustainability Analysis Framework.  > Using the case of energy sector investments in Caribbean countries, the paper shows how to avoid biases against good projects that pay off over long horizons and ensure that transformative investments are not sacrificed to myopic assessments of debt sustainability risks.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6gydz6/imfpublic_investment_scalingup_and_debt/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~142844 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*: **IMF**^#1 **investment**^#2 **paper**^#3 **debt**^#4 **sustainability**^#5"


>The banks needed as many loans as possible because they thought they could sell them all.  You mean they could not sell them fast enough.  There was more demand than the supply for this trash paper.  When the demand was still there and the supply of even half-way legitimate loan salad CDOs ran out, the banks started to push into ever riskies and riskier loans just to fill the limitless demand.  This insane demand is part of the problem.  It means the wealth is too concentrated and there are a shitton of billionaires with nothing to invest their idiotic billions into, no reasonable account to park their money at, etc...  If there was no demand for this trash paper, the whole thing would have gone nowhere.


"> 1). How is a loan an asset? I'm the bank and I have 100$. I loan Jimmy 20$. With interest I expect him to pay back 25$. My books sure as shit shouldn't say I'm worth 105$ or even 100$!  If you *extend* a loan to someone, the loan is an asset to you and a liability to them. It's a liability to them because they *owe* you the loan + interest back. It's an *asset* to you because you expect to retrieve the full loan principal AND interest back. There is no difference, cash flow wise, between spending $100 on a machine that makes fidget spinners and earns you $110 back ($10 profit) and extending a loan to Billy at 10% interest (you'll get $110 back, $10 profit).   > My books sure as shit shouldn't say I'm worth 105$ or even 100$!  Why not? I have $100 cash. I loan it out to Billy at 10% interest. Billy is creditworthy and reliable, and certain collateral is in place. I'm worth, essentially, a discounted cash flow of $110 (which as long as my required return is less than 10%, means I'm worth *more* than $100).   > I gave away 20$. I'm worth 80$ right?  No. That assumes you spent $20 and won't get *any* of it back. It's the same as ordering a $20 pizza and eating it all.   Now, the *cash* you have on your *balance sheet* would be $80, but you'd have a loan outstanding as an asset at $20, which is a net 0 movement in equity on the other side.   > Sure I can put it on my books that Jimmy owes me 20$ but I cannot be acting like I HAVE that 20$ can I?  Well, yes and no. On one hand, you are certainly *worth* more than $80 in your scenario. However, banks have some stringent regulations preventing banks from being overly risky.   >  Isn't that how the 08' crash happened?  No. '08 happened from a culmination of many different events, including risky and predatory loan origination, conflicts of interest in credit rating agencies, and low Fed rates, among other issues, including several ""domino effect"" secondary issues.   > Is the risk of default accounted for?   Theoretically, the risk of default is accounted for in two areas:  1. The interest rate extended to the debtor.  2. A provision for loan losses.   > "" because default risk is not transferred with the asset.""  In what context was this seen? No one would willingly sell an asset but hold on to the risk (or they'd charge a high price, at least, for that).    Student loans are a special case. In the U.S., they are generally *non-cancellable.* They survive everything, including bankruptcy. They don't have collateral. Basically, they're going to follow the person around, regardless of situation, INCLUDING simply not paying. This makes default risk (or rather loss risk) lower.  A large portion of loans come from the federal government, which means to a pretty high degree, they are guaranteed by the government. This also makes loss risk lower. The government can garnish wages and all sorts of unpleasant things to get the money back. Even if losses are realized, taxes can (and will) make up the difference.   Private loans have a bit less leeway in these regards, but they still are immune to bankruptcy currently. As such, while they don't have all the tools of the government, they're still essentially invincible."


My first credit card was a JC Penney card, 30-ish years ago.  I had a steady job paying maybe $11/hr at the time, and putting that on the application (with no other long-term debts) was all it took.  They gave me a card and a $4100 limit!!!!  I bought some clothes and stuff there every month or so, and paid the bill in full every month by the due date.    After a few months of that, I was able to apply and get approved for a Visa card (having the JCP card already helped).  After that, just keep on buying and paying in full every month.    Eventually you'll buy a car, and the credit history from the cards will help you get approved for that.  Continue making your payments on time every month.  Same with a house/condo (just bigger).  Basically, don't spend more that you can afford, make your payments regularly and on time.  Pay in full--do NOT just make the minimum payments...that's a recipe for disaster!!!  Don't miss payments, and try not to be late on them.  A late payment once in a great while isn't the end of the world, as long as you pay the late fees and interest charges.


What about changing the income tax to a national sales tax and putting different products and services on a tiered system.  Basic necessities would be taxed at a lower rate (if at all), then you work up the tiers towards purely luxury items that are taxed at a much higher rate?  That would give us the benefits of a sales tax while, at the same time, not placing an extra burden on the lower class (who would, presumably, need to spend a higher portion of their income on basic necessities).


"New SEC rules also now allow brokers to collect fees on non-dividend bearing accounts as an ""ADR Pass-Through Fee"". Since BP (and BP ADR) is not currently paying dividends, this is probably going to be the case here. According to the Schwab brokerage firm, the fee is usually 1-3 cents per share. I did an EDGAR search for BP's documents and came up with too many to read through (due to the oil spill and all of it's related SEC filings) but you can start here: http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/m/q207/adr.html"


Dazed, an RESP is a type of account.  Within the RESP, you can have cash, investments or even savings vehicles like GICs etc.  So depending on where you put the money within the RESP, yes, there is a chance of losing money. If you think your children will attend post secondary education, I don't think that there is a better way to save.  The government will match 20% of your contribution, up to a maximum grant of $500 per year. To take advantage of the grant, we contribute $2500 per year to obtain the maximum $500 grant. Hope this helps!


Michael Pryor's answer is accurate to the actual question asked. The current accepted answer from Dheer is not entirely true but roughly provides an overview of the different entities involved in a typical transaction, with some wrong terminologies, corrected and improved below.  The issuing bank, the one that issues the credit card to the customer. When it comes to the service fee split, the issuer bank takes on the majority of the cut in the service fee paid by the merchant to the different entities. For example, on a 2.5% overall fee paid by merchant, roughly 1.5% goes to the issuer, 0.3% goes to the card network (visa, master card, etc) and the remaining 0.7% goes to the acquiring bank. Reward programs have a partnership with participating merchants, where merchants are charged a higher service fee, for the likelihood of driving a higher volume of transactions to the merchant. A portion of the rewards also comes from the issuer, who shares a percentage of their fee back to the customer, in exchange for the same likelihood of making more profit through increased volume in total transactions. For example, a reward program may charge merchants 4.5% fee, with 3.5% of it going to the issuer. Upto 3% of this can be given back to the customer for their loyalty in using the card service. The banks can afford to take as little as 0.5% instead of their regular 1.5% due to the increased volume of transactions and the fixed fee they collect as membership fee. Note that costco has a similar business plan, but they make money entirely of membership fee. So with enough clients, banks can theoretically afford to run their program entirely on membership fees, costing no additional service fee to merchants. The service fee depicted above is arbitrary, and it can be lowered if the merchant is also a client of the issuing bank, that is, both the issuing bank and acquiring bank are the same. So it is kind of a win-win-win situation. And as usual, the banks can afford to make a larger income, if the customer ends up paying interest for their credit - although the rewards program is not designed accounting on this.


"First it is worth noting the two sided nature of the contracts (long one currency/short a second) make leverage in currencies over a diverse set of clients generally less of a problem.  In equities, since most margin investors are long ""equities"" making it more likely that large margin calls will all be made at the same time. Also, it's worth noting that high-frequency traders often highly levered make up a large portion of all volume in all liquid markets ~70% in equity markets for instance.  Would you call that grossly artificial?  What is that volume number really telling us anyway in that case? The major players holding long-term positions in the FX markets are large banks (non-investment arm), central banks and corporations and unlike equity markets which can nearly slow to a trickle currency markets need to keep trading just for many of those corporations/banks to do business.  This kind of depth allows these brokers to even consider offering 400-to-1 leverage.  I'm not suggesting that it is a good idea for these brokers, but the liquidity in currency markets is much deeper than their costumers."


Where can publicly traded profits go but to shareholders via dividends? They can be retained by the company.


"Keep in mind that the only advantage that using a tax favored account gives you is tax-free growth of the cash value of the policy. This ""Infinite Banking"" spin isn't some sort of new revolution in money management, its just a repackaging of techniques that people have been using for years to manage tax liability with some breathless marketing spiel. Before you jump in, compute the following: Now comes the hard part: Life insurance is sold, never bought. The guy pushing this does seminars at hotels sponsored by life insurance agents. The purpose of the program is to generate sales of insurance. Be wary. If you actually have the significant amounts of money required to capitalize this, there are much better ways to get an income stream from that money -- you need a good financial advisor. And if you have a huge tax liability and a scheme like this somehow makes sense, find someone who does it for a living in your state who isn't a crook."


"My basic rule I tell everyone who will listen is to always live like you're a college student - if you could make it on $20k a year, when you get your first ""real"" job at $40k (eg), put all the rest into savings to start (401(k), IRA, etc). Gradually increase your lifestyle expenses after you hit major savings goals (3+ month emergency fund, house down payment, etc). Any time you get a raise, start by socking it all into your employer's 401(k) or similar. And repeat the above advice."


As per Indian tax laws; income, expense, gain and loss constitute the basic pillars of every individual’s economic life. There are very few cases under which this new 'income' is non taxable. Based on the circumstances, you might have to pay capital gains tax.


Yes. Here's the answer to this question from oregon.gov: 3. I am moving into Oregon. What income will be taxed by Oregon? As an Oregon resident, you are taxed on ALL income regardless of the   source of the income. This includes, but is not limited to: You may need to pay estimated taxes if you don't have Oregon   withholding on your income.


Exactly. Regardless of just the volatility, to weight an asset or two with a majority of your portfolio is poor investment strategy. Ron is a smart guy and obviously understands the benefits of diversification. As others have suggested, I think he is doing it more to make a statement.  When he retires, I hope it doesn't come back to bite him.


I am by no means an expert in this, but I did a little research and came across this page on the SSA site -- Can You Be Entitled To Benefits Retroactively?   You may be entitled to monthly benefits retroactively for months before the month you filed an application for benefits. For example, full retirement age claims and survivor claims may be paid for up to six months retroactively. In certain cases, benefits involving disability up to 12 months may be paid retroactively. (This is not true of the special age 72 payments (see §§346-348), black lung benefits (see Chapter 22), medical insurance (see Chapter 24), or SSI (see Chapter 21).) SSA Handbook (emphasis mine) Based on this, it sounds like he may be mistaken. I recommend speaking to a SSA rep to get a solid answer on this though. Not everything on the internet is true.


You're right, but it can be broken down enough to where its more easily absorbable- at least that's the premise. Is definitely a concern we've had and I guess we'll see what's possible through some more user feedback and iteration.


The Homebuyers Tax Credit was unrelated to whether or not a mortgage was part of the purchase. You will have no issue with this credit if you refinance.


Sure, you'd make an $8.33 during that first month with little extra risk. Sounds like free money, right? (Assuming no hidden fees in the fine print.) I don't know that the extra money is worth the time you will spend monitoring the account, especially after inflation claims its share of your pie.  If you're going to use leverage to invest, you should probably pick an investment that will return at a much higher rate. If you can get an unsecured line of credit at 1%, there aren't a lot of downsides. Hopefully interest rates don't rise high enough to eat your earnings, but if they do, you can always liquidate your investments and pay the remainder of the loan.


"According to the IRS, you must have written confirmation from your broker ""or other agent"" whenever you sell shares using a method other than FIFO: Specific share identification.   If you adequately identify the shares   you sold, you can use the adjusted basis of those particular shares to   figure your gain or loss. You will adequately identify your mutual fund shares, even if you   bought the shares in different lots at various prices and times, if   you: Specify to your broker or other agent the particular shares to be sold or transferred at the time of the sale or transfer, and Receive confirmation in writing from your broker or other agent within a reasonable time of your specification of the particular   shares sold or transferred. If you don't have a stockbroker, I'm not sure how you even got the shares. If you have an actual stock certificate, then you are selling very specific shares and the purchase date corresponds to the purchase date of those shares represented on the certificate."


Mint can probably do this. They probably have apps now and their online service has had charts for years.


Unlike other responses, I am also not good with money.  Actually, I understand personal finance well, but I'm not good at executing my financial life responsibly.  Part is avoiding tough news, part is laziness. There are tools that can help you be better with your money.  In the past, I used YNAB (You Need a Budget).  (I'm not affiliated, and I'm not saying this product is better than others for OP.)  Whether you use their software or not, their strategy works if you stick with it.  Each time you get paid, allocate every dollar to categories where your budget tells you they need to be, prioritizing expenses, then bills, then debt reduction, then wealth building.  As you spend money, mark it against those categories.  Reconcile them as you spend the money.  If you go over in one category (eating out for example), you have to take from another (entertainment).  There's no penalties for going over, but you have to take from another category to cover it.  So the trick to all of it is being honest with yourself, sticking to it, recording all expenditures, and keeping priorities straight.   I used it for three months.  Like many others, I saved enough the first month to pay the cost of the software.  I don't remember why I stopped using it, but I wish I had not.  I will start again soon.


A good resource for this type of help is the National Foundation for Credit Counseling (NFCC). They provide free and low-cost credit counselors who can... Most importantly, avoid those for-profit debt consolidation companies. They are ripoffs.


No, you're not missing anything. RSUs are pretty simple when it comes to taxes. They are taxed as compensation at fair market value when they vest, basically equivalent to the company giving you a cash bonus and then using it to buy company stock. The fair market value at vesting then becomes your cost basis. Assuming the value has increased since vesting, selling the shares that vested at least a year ago (to qualify for lower long-term capital gains tax rates) with the highest cost basis with result in the minimum taxes.


"If you're making $80k, and you're consulting for an extra $400/wk or $20,800/yr, you're earning a total of $100,800.  That's assuming you do it for a full calendar year of course.  Either way, assuming you can deduct/exclude at least $11k of income (as almost everyone can), you're paying 25% on your marginal dollars.  (This also assumes you're single; if you're married/filing jointly, this may not be true.)  Note, you're right at the edge of the 25% bracket if you earn this in a full calendar year - but if you have a 401k, health insurance, or other reductions you'll be fine.  Additionally, for this year you'll be under (again assuming single and no other income) because you aren't earning a full year's worth. Assuming your $80k is precisely taken care of by your regular withholding, then, you will literally pay 25%*$400/week in additional taxes - $100 per week.  So if you are paid biweekly, you need to add $200/week in withholding on your W-4.  If you expect to overpay taxes (if you own a house with a mortgage for example, you often do), you can reduce it some, but adding $200/biweekly paycheck should bring you right to where you were before the extra income. The general rule is to calculate your marginal (not effective) tax rate before the new income, assuming default withholding takes care of that, and then withhold the marginal rate for the new income [checking that the new income doesn't push the marginal rate up - if so, calculate in two parts, the part in the lower marginal rate and the part in the higher marginal rate]. You can google ""2014 tax brackets"", or look at the IRS tax tables for detailed information about marginal rates."


"TL;DR: If your currently held bond's bid yield is smaller than another bonds' ask yield. You can swap your bond for bigger returns. Let's imagine you buy a long bond for $12000 (face value of $10000) and it has 6% coupon. The cash flows will have an internal return rate of 4.37%, this is the published ""ask yield"" in 2014 of the bond. After six years, prices have fallen, inflation and yields went up. So you can sell it for only $10000. If you would do it, the IRR will be only 2.55%, so there will be less return, than if you keep it.  But if you would ""undo"" the transaction, then the future cash flows would yield 6.38%. This is the ""bid yield"" in 2020 of the bond. If you can find an offer that yields more than 6.38%, you have better returns if you sell your bond and invest that $10000 in the other bond.  But as other answers pointed it out, you rarely have this opportunity as the market is very effective. (Assuming everything else is equal.)"


"First, let's look at the tax brackets for single taxpayers in 2016: The cutoff between the 25% and 28% tax bracket is $91,150.  You said that your gross is $87,780.  This will be reduced by deductions and exemptions (at least $10,350).  Your rental income will increase your income, but it is offset in part by your rental business expenses. For this year, you will almost certainly be in the 25% bracket, whether or not you receive your backpay this year.  Next year, if you receive your backpay then and your salary is $11k higher, I'm guessing you'll be close to the edge. It is important to remember that the tax brackets are marginal.  This means that when you move up to the next tax bracket, it is only the amount of income that puts you over the top that is taxed at the higher rate.  (You can see this in the chart above.)  So if, for example, your taxable income ends up being $91,160, you'll be in the 28% tax bracket, but only $10 of your income will be taxed at 28%.  The rest will be taxed at 25% or lower.  As a result, this probably isn't worth worrying about too much. A bit more explanation, requested by the OP: Here is how to understand the numbers in the tax bracket chart.  Let's take a look at the second line, $9,276-$37,650.  The tax rate is explained as ""$927.50 plus 15% of the amount over $9,275.""  The first $9,275 of your taxable income is taxed at a 10% rate.  So if your total taxable income falls between $9,276 and $37,650, the first $9,275 is taxed at 10% (a tax of $927.50) and the amount over $9,275 is taxed at 15%.  On each line of the chart, the amount of tax from all the previous brackets is carried down, so you don't have to calculate it. When I said that you have at least $10,350 in deductions and exemptions, I got that number from the standard deduction and the personal exemption amount.  For 2016, the standard deduction for single taxpayers is $6,300.  (If you itemize your deductions, you might be able to deduct more.)  Personal exemptions for 2016 are at $4,050 per person.  That means you get to reduce your taxable income by $4,050 for each person in your household.  Since you are single with no dependents, your standard deduction plus the personal exemption for yourself will result in a reduction of at least $10,350 on your taxable income."


"If the investments are in a non-retirement, taxable account, there's not much you can do to avoid short-term capital gains if you sell now. Ways to limit short-term capital gains taxes: Donate -- you can donate some of the stock to charity (before selling it). Transfer -- you can give some of the stock to, say, a family member in a lower tax bracket. But there are tons of rules, gift limits, and won't work for little kids or full time students. They would still pay taxes at their own rate. Protect your gains by buying puts. Wait it out until the long-term capital gains rate kicks in. This allows you to lock in your gains now (but you won't benefit from potential future appreciation.) Buying puts also costs $, so do the ROI calculation. (You could also sell a call and buy a put at the same time and lock in your gains for certain, but the IRS often looks at that as locking in the short-term capital gain, so be careful and talk to a tax professional if you are considering that method.) Die. There's a ""step-up"" basis on capital gains for estates. source: http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/30/avoid-capital-gains-tax-anschutz-personal-finance-baldwin-tax-strategy.html"


You are still selling one investment and buying another - the fact that they are managed by the same company should be irrelevant.  So yes, it would get the same tax treatment as if they were managed by different companies.


US Bank just introduced this feature, but they want $.50 per deposit!  No way man. Schwab has an Android App I have used a dozen times.   Very easy and pretty consistent.  It worked on folded checks, pictures on a reflective background (kitchen table top), big company issued checks and of course personal checks. Very positive feeling from this app and the ability to deposit.


In Canada, it is similarly taxed as CQM states. Mining is considered business income and you need to file a T1 form. Capital appreciation is no different than treating gains from stock.


Charging very high prices for additional standard services: See Commission & Fees: https://brokerage-static.s3.amazonaws.com/assets/robinhood/legal/RHF%20Retail%20Commisions%20and%20Fees%20Schedule.pdf Link is down in the footer, to the left...


I would go with option B. That is safer, as it would leave you with more options, in case of an unexpected job loss or an emergency.


Why would his prediction be doubted? The guy predicted the housing bubble because he saw middle managers in every place of business being replaced by software. They were unable to find a new similar paying job and thus lost their houses. Now he sees 500,000 full-time job loses and 800,000 part-time job gains in one financial quarter. He sees 200,000 jobs created last month in July with 140,000 of those jobs being low wage service jobs. The guy is not a prophet. He is a realist. You investors who see the economy with rose-colored glasses are riding high on maximized profits as a result of low-wage earning skeleton operation crews. You'll be in for a rude awakening to find fewer customers able to buy the products and services being offered.


Yea, honestly taking in debt is pretty much never a good idea. Even borrowing from your own family can cause issues. It better be a very serious issue if you're trying to borrow and use money you don't have. Especially if we're talking about figured that are high relative to your income stream and/or that of the person you're borrowing from if it's not an official entity.


It is ordinary income to you. You should probably talk to a California licensed CRTP/EA/CPA, but I doubt they'll say anything different. You would probably ask them whether you can treat some of it as a refund of rent paid, but I personally wouldn't feel comfortable with that.


It's been a couple years since I worked on Transfer Pricing project.   It makes sense though. I'd imagine that's why Texas and Florida are doing, tax wise, so much better than California and other high tax states.


Also, consider the possibility of early withdrawal penalties.  Regular 401k early withdrawal (for non-qualified reasons) gets you a 10% penalty, in addition to tax, on the entire amount, even if you're just withdrawing your own contributions.  Withdrawing from a Roth 401k can potentially mean less penalties (if it's been in place 5 years, and subject to a bunch of fine print of course).


Classes of shares are not necessarily standardized. Some share classes have preference above others in the event of a liquidation. Some share classes represent a different proportion of ownership interest. Any time you see multiple share classes, you need to research what is different for that specific corporation.


You will not be able to.  Here is why you don't have the collateral.   You have a car that is probably not worth 10k.  Also you probably do not have a simple interest loan.  You have to look at your contract.  Make sure that there is not early payment fee.  Also look for the rule of 78's   Explanation of Rule of 78's I can't sugarcoat this chances are you were ripped off because you had bad credit putting you into an even deeper hole.


It's the rate of return on new opportunities. The rate on existing projects isn't relevant. If you buy a bond 10 years ago when market Interest rates were 8%, and you have cash to buy another bond today, it is today's interest rates that are relevant, not the rates 10 years ago.


First, request that you complete a tax return. On this tax return, you will complete both the employed and self employed sections. This will give you a total income and tax liability. You will already have paid some tax via PAYE, but you will have to pay additional tax for any other income. For future years there is the option, depending on amount, to collect extra tax through PAYE to cover the other earnings. If it is likely to be the same for the next few years, this may be a better option than paying a lump sum. The tax return is now mostly online, and not too bad if your affairs are otherwise simple. The hardest part will be keeping a good record of your other earnings. Remember that you have to keep these records for seven years in case HMRC ever want to audit them, and it's a good idea to have a separate account for the income, or some other way of easily identifying it.


"Been here in Japan 12 years mate, and you're right, the investment options here suck. Be very wary of them, they will take all your money in outrageous fees--3% in and 3% out of some ""investment"" options. It's a scam. Send the money back home and manage it there. I recommend setting up a Vanguard account back in the UK, then you can invest in Vanguard index funds. Vanguard charges no commission for buying and selling their funds when you have a Vanguard account. I have nearly all my money there (Vanguard US), and I use the free Personal Capital online software to understand how to best manage the allocations in my portfolio. Of course you'll lose a bit of money on wire transfer fees, but you'll more than make up for it if in the long-term, and they may also be offset by currency rate anyway (right now the yen is strong, so a good time to use it to buy GBP). Also you may never need to send the money back to Japan unless you plan on retiring here."


I actually do know what I'm talking about, no need to be rude.  Believe me I understand tax advantages of each I'm subjected to them every single day at my work. I am of the belief that buybacks are great when used responsibly, however at the recent rate and scope that companies have been using them I think it's overkill and will have a negative future impact on real company growth.


"Here is the ""investing for retirement"" theoretical background you should have. You should base your investment decisions not simply on the historical return of the fund, but on its potential for future returns and its risk. Past performance does not indicate future results: the past performance is frequently at its best the moment before the bubble pops. While no one knows the specifics of future returns, there are a few types of assets that it's (relatively) safe to make blanket statements about: The future returns of your portfolio will primarily be determined by your asset allocation . The general rules look like: There are a variety of guides out there to help decide your asset allocation and tell you specifically what to do. The other thing that you should consider is the cost of your funds. While it's easy to get lucky enough to make a mutual fund outperform the market in the short term, it's very hard to keep that up for decades on end. Moreover, chasing performance is risky, and expensive. So look at your fund information and locate the expense ratio. If the fund's expense ratio is 1%, that's super-expensive (the stock market's annualized real rate of return is about 4%, so that could be a quarter of your returns). All else being equal, choose the cheap index fund (with an expense ratio closer to 0.1%). Many 401(k) providers only have expensive mutual funds. This is because you're trapped and can't switch to a cheaper fund, so they're free to take lots of your money. If this is the case, deal with it in the short term for the tax benefits, then open a specific type of account called a ""rollover IRA"" when you change jobs, and move your assets there. Or, if your savings are small enough, just open an IRA (a ""traditional IRA"" or ""Roth IRA"") and use those instead. (Or, yell at your HR department, in the event that you think that'll actually accomplish anything.)"


You can and are supposed to report self-employment income on Schedule C (or C-EZ if eligible, which a programmer likely is) even when the payer isn't required to give you 1099-MISC (or 1099-K for a payment network now). From there, after deducting permitted expenses, it flows to 1040 (for income tax) and Schedule SE (for self-employment tax). See https://www.irs.gov/individuals/self-employed for some basics and lots of useful links. If this income is large enough your tax on it will be more than $1000, you may need to make quarterly estimated payments (OR if you also have a 'day job' have that employer increase your withholding) to avoid an underpayment penalty. But if this is the first year you have significant self-employment income (or other taxable but unwithheld income like realized capital gains) and your economic/tax situation is otherwise unchanged -- i.e. you have the same (or more) payroll income with the same (or more) withholding -- then there is a 'safe harbor': if your withholding plus estimated payments this year is too low to pay this year's tax but it is enough to pay last year's tax you escape the penalty. (You still need to pay the tax due, of course, so keep the funds available for that.) At the end of the first year when you prepare your return you will see how the numbers work out and can more easily do a good estimate for the following year(s). A single-member LLC or 'S' corp is usually disregarded for tax purposes, although you can elect otherwise, while a (traditional) 'C' corp is more complicated and AIUI out-of-scope for this Stack; see https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/business-structures for more.


Probably.  It sounds like you're looking for a 1031-exchange for stocks and bonds.  From the wikipedia page for 1031-exchanges: To qualify for Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code, the properties exchanged must be held for productive use in a trade or business or for investment. Stocks, bonds, and other properties are listed as expressly excluded by Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code, though securitized properties are not excluded.  1031-exchanges usually are applicable in real estate.


I read, however, that if the company's assets are not kept separate from our assets then if we got sued, the corporate veil would be pierced. This whole venture would be to give us additional income so my wife could watch our daughter and have an income.


"Central Banks are essentially a cartel, designed to let banks in general borrow money from depositors at relatively low interest rates.  They do this in two ways:  By reassuring depositors that momentary cash flow problems at banks will not result in banks failing, they lower the interest rates that depositors demand.  And by imposing strict regulations on banks that are borrowing from depositors at high interest rates.  (People who move money to the banks offering the highest interest rates are especially likely to participate in bank runs.) Borrowing ""too much"" from the Central Bank is considered to be a sign of a bank that is too weak to attract deposits from depositors at ""reasonable"" interest rates. If a bank borrows ""too much"" (as a percentage of the bank's assets) from the Central Bank, the bank regulators will subject the bank to heavy scrutiny.  If the bank fails to find ways to reduce its borrowing from the Central Bank, the bank regulators are likely to steal the bank from its shareholders, and sell the bank to a ""stronger"" bank that pays lower interest rates."


I've used prosper for a while and have a pretty good return based purely on shotgun approach.  I recently invested a few thousand with their automated tool.  Some people will default, but that's expected and part of their expected return calculation.


"Most companies are taken over. One can reasonably guess that company X will be taken over for a price P, at some future point in time. Then the company has a value today, that is less than price P, by a large enough margin so that the investor will likely ""make out"" when the company finally is taken over at some unknown point in time. The exception is a company like Microsoft or Apple that basically grow too large to be taken over. But then they eventually start paying dividends when they become ""mature."" Again, the trick, during the non-dividend paying period (e.g. ten or fifteen years ago) is to guess what dividends will be paid in some future time, and price the stock low enough today so that it will be worthwhile for the buyer."


Not really practical... The real problem is getting the money into a form where you *can* invest it in something.  It's not like E\*Trade will let you FedEx them a briefcase of sequentially numbered hundreds and just credit your account, no questions asked.  That **is** the hard part.


"You can do a lot of deduction FINRA keeps a ""REG-SHO"" list created daily that tells what the daily short volume is. March 26th 2014's list: http://regsho.finra.org/FNSQshvol20140326.txt If you are talking about the United States, this answer may be better ;)"


"(Insert the usual disclaimer that I'm not any sort of tax professional; I'm just a random guy on the Internet who occasionally looks through IRS instructions for fun. Then again, what you're doing here is asking random people on the Internet for help, so here goes.) The gigantic book of ""How to File Your Income Taxes"" from the IRS is called Publication 17. That's generally where I start to figure out where to report what. The section on Royalties has this to say: Royalties from copyrights, patents, and oil, gas, and mineral properties are taxable as ordinary income. In most cases, you report royalties in Part I of Schedule E (Form 1040). However, if you hold an operating oil, gas, or mineral interest or are in business as a self-employed writer, inventor, artist, etc., report your income and expenses on Schedule C or Schedule C-EZ (Form 1040).  It sounds like you are receiving royalties from a copyright, and not as a self-employed writer. That means that you would report the income on Schedule E, Part I. I've not used Schedule E before, but looking at the instructions for it, you enter this as ""Royalty Property"". For royalty property, enter code “6” on line 1b and leave lines 1a and 2 blank for that property. So, in Line 1b, part A, enter code 6. (It looks like you'll only use section A here as you only have one royalty property.) Then in column A, Line 4, enter the royalties you have received. The instructions confirm that this should be the amount that you received listed on the 1099-MISC. Report on line 4 royalties from oil, gas, or mineral properties (not including operating interests); copyrights; and patents. Use a separate column (A, B, or C) for each royalty property. If you received $10 or more in royalties during 2016, the payer should send you a Form 1099-MISC or similar statement by January 31, 2017, showing the amount you received. Report this amount on line 4.  I don't think that there's any relevant Expenses deductions you could take on the subsequent lines (though like I said, I've not used this form before), but if you had some specific expenses involved in producing this income it might be worth looking into further. On Line 21 you'd subtract the 0 expenses (or subtract any expenses you do manage to list) and put the total. It looks like there are more totals to accumulate on lines 23 and 24, which presumably would be equally easy as you only have the one property. Put the total again on line 26, which says to enter it on the main Form 1040 on line 17 and it thus gets included in your income."


Ask the folks administering your plan. They're the ones who define and implement the available choices for that specific plan.


"You seem to really have your financial act together.  Your combination of assets, and ongoing savings makes you the ideal candidate for paying it off. One way to look at it is that your mortgage offers you a place to 'invest' at a fixed 2-7/8% rate. ""I'd really like to not have a house payment"" is all I need to hear.  The flip side is the lecture that talks about long term market returns, the fact that the combination of your deductible mortgage, but 15% cap gain rate means you need 2.5% return to break even, and odds are pretty high that will occur over the next 15 years. ""pretty high"" does not equal ""guaranteed"". And I won't debate the value of sleeping soundly vs an excess 5-8% return on this money that you'd maybe achieve.  You haven't missed anything. In fact, though I advocate saving first, you are already doing that. This is above and beyond. Good work."


what do you mean exactly?  Do you have a future target price and projected future dividend payments and you want the present value (time discounted price) of those? Edit: The DCF formula is difficult to use for stocks because the future price is unknown.  It is more applicable to fixed-income instruments like coupon bonds.  You could use it but you need to predict / speculate a future price for the stock. You are better off using the standard stock analysis stuff: Learn Stock Basics - How To Read A Stock Table/Quote The P/E ratio and the Dividend yield are the two most important.  The good P/E ratio for a mature company would be around 20.  For smaller and growing companies, a higher P/E ratio is acceptable.  The dividend yield is important because it tells you how much your shares grow even if the stock price stays unchanged for the year. HTH


I am not a tax professional, only an investment professional, so please take the following with a grain of salt and simply as informational guidance, not a personal recommendation or solicitation to buy/sell any security or as personal tax or investment advice. As Ross mentioned, you need to consult a tax advisor for a final answer concerning your friend's personal circumstances. In my experience advising hundreds of clients (and working directly with their tax advisors) the cost basis is used to calculate tax gain or loss on ordinary investments in the US. It appears to me that the Edward Jones description is correct. This has also been the case for me personally in the US with a variety of securities--stocks, options, futures, bonds, mutual funds, and exchange traded funds.  From the IRS: https://www.irs.gov/uac/about-form-1099b Form 1099-B, Proceeds From Broker and Barter Exchange Transactions A broker or barter exchange must file this form for each person: Edward Jones should be able to produce a 1099b documenting the gains/losses of any investments. If the 1099b document is confusing, they might have a gain/loss report that more clearly delineates proceeds, capital returns, dividends, and other items related to the purchase and sale of securities.


You have to balance several concerns here. The primary problem is that if you go to the effort of saving your money you want to also be sure that your savings will not lose too much of its value to inflation. Ukraine had a terrible inflation spike in 2015 for obvious reasons. Even as inflation has settled down in 2016, it is stabilizing around 12% which is very high  Exchange rates are your next concern. If you lose a large percentage of the value of your money just in the process of exchanging it, that also eats away at the value of your money. If you accept the US Federal Reserve target of 2% inflation, then you should only exchange money that you will hold long enough that both exchange fees will outweigh the 10% inflation advantage. Even in cases where you have placed your money in a foreign currency, there's a chance that your government could freeze accounts denominated in foreign currencies, so there's always the political risk that you have to factor in. For that reason keeping foreign currency in cash also has some appeal because it cannot be confiscated as easily. You could still certainly be robbed, so keeping all of your savings in cash isn't a great solution either. All in all, you are diversifying your savings if you use the strategy of balancing all three methods. Splitting it evenly to 5% for each method isn't the most important. I would suggest taking advantage of good exchange rates (as they appear) to time when you buy foreign currency.


"TD e-series index funds are great for regular contributions every paycheck since there is no trading commission.  The personal finance blog ""Canadian Couch Potato"" has great examples of what they call ""model portfolios"" and one consists of entirely TD e-series index funds.  Check it out:  http://canadiancouchpotato.com/model-portfolios-2/ The e-series portfolio that is described in the Model Portfolios (linked above) made returns of just over 10%.  This is very similar to the ETF Model Portolio.   One thing to remember is that these funds have a 30 day no sell time frame, otherwise a 2% fee is applied to the funds you withdraw."


I suggest rolling it over to the 401(k) with your new employer.  Particularly if they match any percentage of your contribution, it would be in your interest to take as much of that money as possible. When it comes to borrowing money from your 401(k), it looks like the issues AbraCadaver mentioned only apply if you don't pay back the money (http://www.kiplinger.com/article/real-estate/T010-C000-S002-borrowing-from-your-retirement-plan-to-buy-a-home.html).  The reasonable argument against taking money out of your 401(k) to buy a home is that it leaves a dent in your retirement nest egg (and its earning power) during key earning years.  On the plus side for borrowing from your 401(k), it's very low interest--and it's interest you're paying back to yourself over a 5-year period.  At its current value, the most you could borrow from your 401(k) is $35K.  If you're fortunate in where you live, that could be most or all of the downpayment. In my own experience, my wife borrowed against her 401(k) balance for the earnest money when we purchased a new home.  Fortunately for us, an investor snapped up my previous home within 4 days of us listing it, so she was able to pay back her loan in full right away.


"Stripping away the minutia, your question boils down to this: Should I take a loan for something that I may not be able to repay? The correct answer, is ""No""."


"From Pub 550: More or less stock bought than sold.   If the number of shares of   substantially identical stock or securities you buy within 30 days   before or after the sale is either more or less than the number of   shares you sold, you must determine the particular shares to which the   wash sale rules apply. You do this by matching the shares bought with   an equal number of the shares sold. Match the shares bought in the   same order that you bought them, beginning with the first shares   bought. The shares or securities so matched are subject to the wash   sale rules. You must match ""beginning with the first shares bought."" If only activity 1 & 4 happened, you'd have bought and sold stock with no wash sale. If you remove activity 1 & 4 from consideration because they are a ""normal"" or non-wash sale transaction, then the Activity 2 or Activity 3 trigger a wash sale. The shares in lot 1 are sold for disallowed loss, so the disallowed basis would be added to shares in lot 2 because lot 2 was purchased before lot 3. (hat tip to user662852 who had much better wording) Second example: Activity 5, 7, and 8 all together would not be a wash sale.   The addition of activity 6 creates a wash sale. The shares in Activity 5 are sold for a disallowed loss in Activity 7 & 8 because of the wash sale triggering purchase in Activity 6.   Activity 6 is where you add the disallowed basis because they are the ""first shares bought"" that cause the wash sale rule to be triggered."


There are two problems with your understanding: The companies I have worked for match based on a percentage of your salary. That is a percentage of your gross pay. It was not based on the percentage of your net pay or after-tax pay. Net pay would be too hard to know. What I mean is the amount of insurance, HSA, Flex spending accounts, etc. determine how much is taxable and thus what is your after-tax pay . In fact if you split between the Roth and Pre-tax forms of the 401K your retirement contribution would influence the amount of the after tax contribution. All matching funds no matter the nature of the contribution (pre-tax, post-tax, Roth) are always considered pre-tax. You didn't pay taxes on the money when it was credited to your account.


$10.90 for every $1000 per year. Are you kidding me!!! These are usually hidden within the expense ratio of the plan funds, but >1% seems to be quite a lot regardless. FUND X 1 year return 3% 3 year return 6% 10 year return 5% What does   that exactly mean? This is the average annual rate of return. If measured for the last 3 years, the average annual rate of return is 6%, if measured for 1 year - it's 3%. What it means is that out of the last 3 years, the last year return was not the best, the previous two were much better. Does that mean that if I hold my mutual funds for 10 years I will get   5% return on it. Definitely not. Past performance doesn't promise anything for the future. It is merely a guidance for you, a comparison measure between the funds. You can assume that if in the past the fund performed certain way, then given the same conditions in the future, it will perform the same again. But it is in no way a promise or a guarantee of anything. Since my 401K plan stinks what are my options. If I put my money in a   traditional IRA then I lose my pre tax benefits right! Wrong, IRA is pre-tax as well. But the pre-tax deduction limits for IRA are much lower than for 401k.  You can consider investing in the 401k, and then rolling over to a IRA which will allow better investment options. After your update: Just clearing up the question. My current employer has a 401K. Most of   the funds have the expense ratio of 1.20%. There is NO MATCHING   CONTRIBUTIONS. Ouch. Should I convert the 401K of my old company to Traditional IRA and   start investing in that instead of investing in the new employer 401K   plan with high fees. You should probably consider rolling over the old company 401k to a traditional IRA. However, it is unrelated to the current employer's 401k. If you're contributing up to the max to the Roth IRA, you can't add any additional contributions to traditional IRA on top of that - the $5000 limit is for both, and the AGI limitations for Roth are higher, so you're likely not able to contribute anything at all to the traditional IRA. You can contribute to the employer's 401k. You have to consider if the rather high expenses are worth the tax deferral for you.