Question: What does cryptocurrency mean for governments?

Government's tax citizens and businesses in their currency. Earnings (even earnings in cryptocurrencies) are taxable income.

See, I agree with all of that!  However, I think Clinton is exactly the same personality, underneath a thin veneer. The only real difference is that she is slightly better at hiding her sociopathy. This actually makes her more dangerous.

"Selling as well as buying a stock are part science and part art form.  I remember once selling a stock at its 52 week high too. That particular stock ""quadrupled"" in value over the next 52 weeks.  Mind you I made 50% ROI on the stock but my point is that none of us have a crystal ball on whether a particular stock will ever stop or start going up or stop or start going down. If someone had those answers they wouldn't be telling you they would be practicing them to make more money! Make up your mind what you want to make and stick by your decisions.  Bulls make money when stocks go up and Bears make money when they go down but pigs don't make money. -RobF"

"You don't state where you are, so any answers to this will by necessity be very general in nature. How many bank accounts should I have and what kinds You should have one transaction account and one savings account. You can get by with just a single transaction account, but I really don't recommend that. These are referred to with different names in different jurisdictions, but the basic idea is that you have one account where money is going in and out (the transaction account), and one where money goes in and stays (the savings account). You can then later on, as you discover various needs, build on top of that basic foundation. For example, I have separate accounts for each source of money that comes into my personal finances, which makes things much easier when I sit down to fill out the tax forms up to almost a year and a half later, but also adds a bit of complexity. For me, that simplicity at tax time is worth the additional complexity; for someone just starting out, it might not be. (And of course, it is completely unnecessary if you have only one source of taxable income and no other specific reason to separate income streams.) how much (percentage-wise) of my income should I put into each one? With a single transaction account, your entire income will be going into that account. Having a single account to pay money into will also make life easier for your employer. You will then have to work out a budget that says how much you plan to spend on food, shelter, savings, and so on. how do I portion them out into budgets and savings? If you have no idea where to start, but have an appropriate financial history (as opposed to just now moving into a household of your own), bring out some old account statements and categorize each line item in a way that makes sense to you. Don't be too specific; four or five categories will probably be plenty. These are categories like ""living expenses"" (rent, electricity, utilities, ...), ""food and eating out"" (everything you put in your mouth), ""savings"" (don't forget to subtract what you take out of savings), and so on. This will be your initial budget. If you have no financial history, you are probably quite young and just moving out from living with your parents. Ask them how much might be reasonable in your area to spend on basic food, a place to live, and so on. Use those numbers as a starting point for a budget of your own, but don't take them as absolute truths. Always have a ""miscellaneous expenses"" or ""other"" line in your budget. There will always be expenses that you didn't plan for, and/or which don't neatly fall into any other category. Allocate a reasonable sum of money to this category. This should be where you take money from during a normal month when you overshoot in some budget category; your savings should be a last resort, not something you tap into on a regular basis. (If you find yourself needing to tap into your savings on a regular basis, adjust your budget accordingly.) Figure out based on your projected expenses and income how much you can reasonably set aside and not touch. It's impossible for us to say exactly how much this will be. Some people have trouble setting aside 5% of their income on a regular basis without touching it; others easily manage to save over 50% of their income. Don't worry if this turns out a small amount at first. Get in touch with your bank and set up an automatic transfer from your transaction account to the savings account, set to recur each and every time you get paid (you may want to allow a day or two of margin to ensure that the money has arrived in your account before it gets taken out), of the amount you determined that you can save on a regular basis. Then, try to forget that this money ever makes it into your finances. This is often referred to as the ""pay yourself first"" principle. You won't hit your budget exactly every month. Nobody does. In fact, it's more likely that no month will have you hit the budget exactly. Try to stay under your budgeted expenses, and when you get your next pay, unless you have a large bill coming up soon, transfer whatever remains into your savings account. Spend some time at the end of each month looking back at how well you managed to match your budget, and make any necessary adjustments. If you do this regularly, it won't take very long, and it will greatly increase the value of the budget you have made. Should I use credit cards for spending to reap benefits? Only if you would have made those purchases anyway, and have the money on hand to pay the bill in full when it comes due. Using credit cards to pay for things is a great convenience in many cases. Using credit cards to pay for things that you couldn't pay for using cash instead, is a recipe for financial disaster. People have also mentioned investment accounts, brokerage accounts, etc. This is good to have in mind, but in my opinion, the exact ""savings vehicle"" (type of place where you put the money) is a lot less important than getting into the habit of saving regularly and not touching that money. That is why I recommend just a savings account: if you miscalculate, forgot a large bill coming up, or for any other (good!) reason need access to the money, it won't be at a time when the investment has dropped 15% in value and you face a large penalty for withdrawing from your retirement savings. Once you have a good understanding of how much you are able to save reliably, you can divert a portion of that into other savings vehicles, including retirement savings. In fact, at that point, you probably should. Also, I suggest making a list of every single bill you pay regularly, its amount, when you paid it last time, and when you expect the next one to be due. Some bills are easy to predict (""$234 rent is due the 1st of every month""), and some are more difficult (""the electricity bill is due on the 15th of the month after I use the electricity, but the amount due varies greatly from month to month""). This isn't to know exactly how much you will have to pay, but to ensure that you aren't surprised by a bill that you didn't expect."

"I'm sorry, i should have said I was saying that sarcastically, but those are the arguments which I suspect are being made.  >*""You did not answer my question: Where's my advocate in the negotiations?""*  Its doubtful that they would be among the hundreds (thousands?) of lobbyists. Unless you are a corporation and you have one.  >*""Why should I believe the negotiators have my best interests at heart?""*  I don't think the negotiators have your or the country's best interests at heart. I think they barely even play lip service to it any more.   >*""What's the point of negotiating a treaty that doesn't have the people's interests at heart?""*     Well, look at all the things that are in TTIP, for example, here in the US, by underfunding government agencies tasked with enforcement of existing laws and recommending new ones, the chemical industry has succeeded for the last 25 years or so at preventing a lot of needed regulation of a lot of demonstrably dangerous substances. Particularly a class of chemicals called [endocrine disruptors](http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/tag/Endocrine-Disruptors/).   Meanwhile, Europe has put into place much more stringent regulations based on the Precautionary Principle, which requires that chemical industry prove some chemicals are safe to get them approved, while the US the key issue is overcoming lobbyists and even chemicals which are clearly dangerous have to go through a lot of hoops before they are regulated, and even when its shown to be extremely likely they are dangerous, it is very difficult when lobbyists are there often regulators are political appointees from the industries they are supposed to regulate. There is no denying that having different regulations is complicated, but what they are promoting as a solution is not a good approach.   They are pushing for what they call regulatory coherence- which is basically the forcing of all environmental and chemical laws in a bunch of countries [into the same mold](http://www.ciel.org/Publications/ToxicPartnership_Mar2014.pdf). It would overrule a lot of state laws involving things like fracking..and food safety -   Instead of raising our standards to the European level, they want to bring theirs down, and get rid of the (IMO, quite prudent) Precautionary Principle, which I think is incredibly stupid. But, people are not aware of this.  There- I think has clearly been a high level decision - some kind of gentlemans agreement between the 5 media corporations that control virtually all US media, to never cover some issues.  To not cover those issues at all. But in Europe they have a similar problem, just not quite as bad. But there people make more of an effort to find out whats really happening. Also there are fewer astroturfers.  (the US is known for massive levels of astroturfing in its online world)  For example, in the UK, there is a lot of protesting because of the implicit goal of the FTAs is to privatize public services, although they deny it, its right there [in agreements like GATS](http://www.iatp.org/files/GATS_and_Public_Service_Systems.htm), framing public services as bad, some kind of theft from companies, and ratcheting any small privatization into a permanent entitlement for that company to that market so its permanent, even if its unsuccessful. Thats been [disastrous to their NHS](https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/john-hilary/on-ttip-and-nhs-they-are-trying-to-bamboozle-us).  How did it get this way? In part its due to the failure of Americans to seek out facts, something people really have to do because there are forces spending a lot of effort into hiding them and trying to exploit positions of trust to create a dangerous false security..  Its a direct result of so much money in politics. The so called ""stakeholders"" spend a lot of money and energy into getting candidates into office. So then they expect something in return.   This is related: http://www.chemsec.org/what-we-do/influencing-public-policy/news-updates/1321-letter-to-the-ttip-negotiators-signed-by-178-groups"

I don't hate your point, but driver chattiness has nothing to do with Uber vs Lyft. I've taken lots of both and many drivers do both as well. I've never been compelled to sit in the front in a Lyft and tip has always been an option with Lyft. No obligation if you don't want to.

"The other answers have touched on amortization, early payment, computation of interest, etc, which are all very important, but I think there's another way to understand the importance of knowing the P/I breakdown. The question mentions the loan payment as ""cash outflow"". That is true, but from an accounting perspective (disclaimer: I am not an accountant, but I know enough of the basics to be dangerous), the outflow needs to be directed to different accounts. The loan principal appears as a liability on your personal balance sheet, which you could use, for example, in determining net worth. The principal amount in your payment should be applied to reduce the liability account. The interest payment goes into the expense account.  Another way to look at it is that the principal, while it does reduce your cash account, can be thought of as an internal transfer to the liability account, thus reducing the size of the liability. The interest payment cannot. Aside: From this perspective, the value of the home is an asset, and the difference between the asset account and the loan liability account is the equity in the house (as pointed out in different language by the accepted answer). Of course, precisely determining the value of an illiquid asset like a house at any given moment pretty much requires you to actually sell it, so those accounts are hard to maintain in real-time (the liability of the loan is much easier to track)."

The matching funds are free money, so it is a very good idea to take that money off the table.  Look at it as free 100% return: you deposit $1000, your employer matches that $1000, you now have $2000 in your 401(k).  (Obviously, I'm keeping things simple.  Vesting schedules mean that the employer match isn't yours to keep immediately, but rather after some time; usually in chunks.) Beyond the employer match, you need to consider what is available for investment in a 401(k).  Typically, your options are more limited then in an IRA.  The cost of the 401(k) should be considered, as it isn't trivial for most.  (The specifics will of course vary, but in large IRA accounts are cheaper.) So, it's about the opportunity costs.  Up to the employer match, it doesn't matter as much that your investment choices are more limited in a 401(k), because you're getting 100% return just on the matching funds.  Once that is exhausted, you have more opportunity for returns, due to having more options available to you, by going with an account that provides more choices. The overall principle here is that you have to look at the whole picture.  This is similar to the notion that you should pay-down your high interest debt before investing, because from the perspective of investing the interest you're paying represent a loss, or negative return on investment, since money is going out of your accounts.  Specific to your question, you have to consider the various types of investment vehicles available to you.  It is not just about 401(k) and IRA accounts.  You may also consider a straight brokerage account, a savings account, CDs, etc.  The costs and returns that you can typically expect are your guides through the available choices.


Question: understand taxes when geting money from a project built long time ago plus my full time job

You need to register as self-employed with HMRC (it is perfectly fine to be self-employed and employed by an employer at the same time, in exactly your kind of situation). Then, when the income arrives you will need to declare it on your yearly tax return.  HMRC information about registering for self-employment and declaring the income is here: https://www.gov.uk/working-for-yourself/overview There's a few extra hoops if your clients are outside the UK; the detail depends on whether they are in the EU or not. More details about this are here: https://www.gov.uk/online-and-distance-selling-for-businesses/selling-overseas .

You could open an HSA with a company like Vanguard or Fidelity that offers lower fees and roll the money there if you want to avoid the $3.50/month. The chances of you going until retirement without opportunities to spend down the money in that account on medical expenses seems rather low.

"It's a tricky question w/out more context. If your only options are between stock/funds and letting it sit (i.e. in a saving or CD), I'd have to say option one is the way to go (but that's based on my situation, and you did ask ""if you .."").  However, I think the true answer is ""it depends."" It depends on your risk tolerance and what are your short-term vs. long-term financial needs. Only after answering those questions you can then seek to strategize and diversify investment accordingly."

A lot of people will probably talk about appearance, body language and all the rest of the social stuff  I say..If you have evidence to prove you are competent to do the job, concentrate on that..just the facts, clearly explained  Of course, if you are incompetent..get a nicer suit, learn how to shake hands and practice brown-nosing

Votes.  Resources everyone requires.  The ability to sue people forever for the same or similar issue, until those people are financially unable to defend themselves. Control over a “corner” of the market.  The means of production from under their competition. And on and on.

If you're willing to take on higher risk than a corporate investor (you have to be) and you are smart it's way easier to operate as an individual. Your position/strategy is SO much easier to execute just simply based on trade size, you have relatively no overhead. You won't impact the market at all which is where a heavy hitter might have an advantage, other than that you are in a better position in terms of return vs investment.

I am in the United States. There is no need to keep the statements in any form forever. Once the bank gives you a 1099 stating how much interest you have earned, you don't need to keep them. If you only have them in electronic form, that is good enough for the IRS. When you do need to show a bank statement, such as when applying for a loan, the loan company will be keeping a copy. It doesn't matter if it was a scan from the original, from a printed PDF, or if you printed it from your archives. In the US they used send the original check back to the person who wrote it, so they could keep it for their records. Then many banks went to carbons, but if you paid extra they would send you the original. Now the bank that cashes the check scans the check and destroys the original. If you want a copy for your records it only exists as a scanned image.

>The assumption that most of the jobs will be automated doesn't necessarily imply that automation leads to job loss.  That's the problem. Apparently, it does. Every job can be replaced with a new software. Again, short-term there it might not be noticable, but in few decades, there is a high possibility of most jobs being replaced. But this is not the question, the question is, how would businesses make money in case everyone was replaced with a software.


Question: Stock stopped trading, what does this mean?

It looks like JP Morgan can convert your holding to unsponsored ADRs until July.. In any event, you should not completely lose the equity. Volvo still exists as a public company, it's just not tradable on US exchanges. Q1: Yes, you'd need a JPM account.  Your broker should have offered a similar service. If they didn't they are not a broker. Q2: You own 30 shares in Volvo. You need to get your broker to either sell them (off-exchange now) or tell you how to gain access to them.

This idea does not make sense for most mutual funds. The net asset value, or NAV, is the current market value of a fund's holdings, minus the fund's liabilities, that is usually expressed as a per-share amount. For most funds, the NAV is determined daily, after the close of trading on some specified financial exchange, but some funds update their NAV multiple times during the trading day. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_fund I am not certain, but I believe that OppenheimerFunds does not report intraday prices.  I would call them up and ask.

"You could not have two stocks both at $40, both with P/E 2, but one an EPS of $5 and the other $10.  EPS = Earnings Per Share P/E = Price per share/Earnings Per Share So, in your example, the stock with EPS of $5 has a P/E of 8, and the stock with an EPS of $10 has a P/E of 4.  So no, it's not valid way of looking at things, because your understanding of EPS and P/E is incorrect. Update: Ok, with that fixed, I think I understand your question better. This isn't a valid way of looking at P/E. You nailed one problem yourself at the end of the post: The tricky part is that you have to assume certain values remain   constant, I suppose But besides that, it still doesn't work. It seems to make sense in the context of investor psychology: if a stock is ""supposed to"" trade at a low P/E, like a utility, that it would stay at that low P/E, and thus a $1 worth of EPS increase would result in lower $$ price increase than a stock that was ""supposed to"" have a high P/E. And that would be true. But let's game it out: Scenario Say you have two stocks, ABC and XYZ. Both have $5 EPS. ABC is a utility, so it has a low P/E of 5, and thus trades at $25/share. XYZ is a high flying tech company, so it has a P/E of 10, thus trading at $50/share. If both companies increase their EPS by $1, to $6, and the P/Es remain the same, that means company ABC rises to $30, and company XYZ rises to $60. Hey! One went up $5, and the other $10, twice as much! That means XYZ was the better investment, right? Nope. You see, shares are not tokens, and you don't get an identical, arbitrary number of them. You make an investment, and that's in dollars. So, say you'd invested $1,000 in each. $1,000 in ABC buys you 40 shares. $1,000 in XYZ buys you 20 shares. Their EPS adds that buck, the shares rise to maintain P/E, and you have: ABC: $6 EPS at P/E 5 = $30/share. Position value = 40 shares x $30/share = $1,200 XYZ: $6 EPS at P/E 10 = $60/share. Position value = 20 shares x $60/share = $1,200 They both make you the exact same 20% profit. It makes sense when you think about it this way: a 20% increase in EPS is going to give you a 20% increase in price if the P/E is to remain constant. It doesn't matter what the dollar amount of the EPS or the share price is."

"This seems almost overkill, but if you want to... I suppose one thing you could do is create a separate money in transit account, similar to Account Payable and Account Receivable. In your bookkeeping, transfer the money from the source account to the holding account on the date that the source bank withdraws it, and then transfer the money to the destination account on the date that the target bank deposits it. This both makes it clear that there is money going between places, and ensures that the daily balance on each ""physical"" account is accurate. For cash withdrawals and deposits, I'd just use the date when you make the withdrawal, since that is the day from which the money is available in the new location rather than the old one. Note: I don't know if this is the ""proper"" way to do it in a random jurisdiction, but I doubt being this explicit can get you into trouble."

Even after the real estate crash, there are banks that lend money outside of the rules I'll share.  A fully qualified mortgage is typically run at debt to income ratios of 28/36, where 28% of your gross monthly income can apply to the mortgage, property tax, and insurance, and the 36% is the total monthly debt (including the mortgage, etc) plus car loan student loan, etc. It's less about the total loan on the potential than about these ratios. The bank may allow for 75% of monthly rent so until rentals are running at a profit, they may seem a loss, even while just breaking even.  This is just an overview, each bank may vary a bit.

Your plan sounds quite sound to me.  I think that between the choices of [$800 for Loans, $300 for Retirement] and [$1100 for loans], both are good choices and you aren't going to go wrong either way.   Some of the factors you might want to consider: I like your retirement savings choices - I myself use the admiral version of VOO, plus a slightly specialized but still large ETF that allows me to do a bit of shifting.  Having something that's at least a bit counter-market can be helpful for balancing (so something that will be going up some when the market overall is down some); I wouldn't necessarily do bonds at your age, but international markets are good for that, or a stock ETF that's more stable than the overall market.  If you're using Vanguard, look at the minimums for buying Admiral shares (usually a few grand) and aim to get those if possible, as they have significantly lower fees - though VOO seems to pretty much tie the admiral version (VFIAX) so in that case it may not matter so much. As far as the target retirement funds, you can certainly do those, but I prefer not to; they have somewhat higher (though for Vanguard not crazy high) expense ratios.  Realistically you can do the same yourself quite easily.

I think the two have split in many ways. The majority of academic courses of course elevate competency levels, but they are only available either to those who can afford it, or those willing to suffer the debt. Competency in this context refers to direct training with companies in core skills needed directly on the job. Major organizations are now offering those from low-wage backgrounds a direct route to a career by developing their competencies. After a few years they might not have a credential (i.e. qualification such as  a masters degree) but they will have a resume that's skills-rich; and all of those skills will have been industry tested, not college tested. Hope that makes sense :)

"There is no unique identifier that exists to identify specific shares of a stock. Just like money in the bank, there is no real reason to identify which exact dollar bills belong to me or you, so long as there is a record that I own X bills and I can access them when I want. (Of course, unlike banks, there is still a 1:1 relationship between the amount I should own and the amount they actually hold). If I may reach a bit, the question that I assume you are asking is how are shared actually tracked, transferred, and recorded so that I know for certain that I traded you 20 Microsoft shares yesterday and they are now officially yours, given that it's all digital. While you can technically try and request a physical share certificate, it's very cumbersome to handle and transfer in that form.  Ownership of shares themselves are tracked for brokerage firms (in the case of retail trading, which I assume is the context of this question as we're discussion personal finance). Your broker has a record of how many shares of X, Y, and Z you own, when you bought each share and for how much, and while you are the beneficial owner of record (you get dividends, voting rights, etc.) your brokerage is the one who is ""holding"" the shares. When you buy or sell a stock and you are matched with a counterparty (the process of which is beyond the scope of this question) then a process of settlement comes into play. In the US, settlement takes 3 working days to process, and technically ownership does not transfer until the 3rd day after the trade is made, though things like margin accounts will allow you to effectively act as if you own the shares immediately after a buy/sell order is filled. Settlement in the US is done by a sole source, the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC). This is where retail and institutional trade all go to be sorted, checked and confirmed, and ultimately returned to the safekeeping of their new owners' representatives (your brokerage). Interestingly, the DTCC is also the central custodian for shares both physical and virtual, and that is where the shares of stock ultimately reside."


Question: How to withdraw money from currency account without having to lose so much to currency conversion?

If I understand your question, you're misunderstanding the buy/sell spread, and at least in this instance seem to be in an unfortunate situation where the spread is quite large. The Polish Zloty - GBP ideal exchange rate is around 5.612:1.  Thus, when actually exchanging currency, you should expect to pay a bit more than 5.612 Zloty (Zloties?) to get one Pound sterling, and you should expect to get a bit less than 5.612 Zloty in exchange for one Pound sterling.  That's because you're giving the bank its cut, both for operations and so that it has a reason to hold onto some Zloty (that it can't lend out).  It sounds like Barclay's has a large spread - 5.211 Buy, 5.867 Sell.  I would guess British banks don't need all that many Zloty, so you have a higher spread than you would for USD or EUR. Other currency exchange companies or banks, particularly those who are in the primary business of converting money, may have a smaller spread and be more willing to do it inexpensively for you.  Also, it looks like the Polish banks are willing to do it at a better rate (certainly they're giving you more Zloty for one Pound sterling, so it seems likely the other way would be better as well, though since they're a Polish bank it's certainly easier for them to give you Zloty, so this may be less true).  Barclay's is certainly giving you a better deal on Pounds for a Zloty than they are Zloty for a Pound (in terms of how far off their spread is from the ideal).

No one at my firm uses python, but we have both long-term algo-managed portfolios as well as very successful day trading strategies. I've worked a bit with both, so if you have any questions I'd be happy to try and answer them and if I can't I'll ask at work next week.

There are the EDHEC-risk indices based on similar hedge fund types but even then an IR would give you performance relative to the competition, which is not useful for most hf's as investors don't say I want to buy a global macro fund, vs a stat arb fund, investors say I want to pay a guy to give me more money!  Most investors don't care how the OTHER funds did or where the market went, they want that NAV to go always up , which is why a modified sharpe is probably better.

Two of the main ways that investors benefit financially from a stock are dividends and increases in the price of the stock.  In the example as described, the benefits came primarily from dividends, leaving less benefits to be realized in terms of an increase in the value of the company. Another way to put that is that the company paid its profits to shareholders in the form of a dividend, instead of accumulating that as an increase in the value of the company.  The company could have chosen to take those profits and reinvest them in growing the business, which would lead to lower dividends but (hopefully) an increase in the valuation of the stock, but they chose to pay dividends instead.  This still rewards the investors, but  share prices stay low.

"I don't read crap I already know about.  I am very sure you are not ""done"" with me, as I am sure you will reply back to me... until the bitter end when you realize some truth, logic and facts. Prove me wrong."

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

I'm not sure if you are including the use of credit cards in the intent of your quesiton.  However, I will give you some good reasons I use them even when I can pay cash: 1) I get an interest free loan for almost 30 days as long as I don't carry balances. 2) I get a statement detailing where I am spending my money that is helpful for budgeting. I'd never keep track to this level of detail if I were using cash. 3) Many cards offer reward programs that can be used for cash back. 4) It helps maintain my credit rating for those times I NEED to buy something and pay it off over time (car, house, etc.) 5) Not so much an issue for me personally, but for people that live paycheck to paycheck, it might help to time your cash outflows to match up with your inflows. For a business, I think it is mostly a cash flow issue. That is, in a lot of B2B type businesses customers can pay very slowly (managing their own cash flows). So your revenue can sometimes lag quite a bit behind the expenses that were associated with them (e.g payroll). A business line of credit can smooth out the cash flow, especially for companies that don't have a lot of cash reserves.

I inherited nothing and have retired comfortably in my 50s after some hard work, tradeoffs etc., however I am quite certain that there are millions who are more intelligent, harder-working, talented and haven't had my luck.  Good luck can get you there, bad luck will stop you, in either case more completely than inheritance, contacts, diligence or talent.  It's worth remembering that the best luck is good health.


Question: Books, Videos, Tutorials to learn about different investment options in the financial domain

Those are some very broad questions and I don't think I can answer them completely, but I will add what I can. Barron's Finance and Investment Handbook is the best reference book I have found. It provides a basic description/definition for every type of investment available. It covers stocks, preferred stocks, various forms of bonds as well as mortgage pools and other exotic instruments. It has a comprehensive dictionary of finance terms as well. I would definitely recommend getting it.  The question about how people invest today is a huge one. There are people who simply put a monthly amount into a mutual fund and simply do that until retirement on one side and professional day traders who move in and out of stocks or commodities on a daily basis on the other.

The simplest way to handle this is for you to rent the apartment and sublet to the girlfriend and friend.  I'd split the utilities evenly, one-third from each.  The reason for this is that each of you contribute evenly to generating the utility bills.  It's not like your income makes the water cost more for you.   Utilities are driven by usage.  Dividing them other than equally is likely to lead to more problems than it solves.  Also, it seems unlikely that a different apartment would use significantly different water, electricity, or internet.  Those are driven by the appliances rather than the size or location of the apartment.  Only pay more for the utilities if you want something that they don't.  For example, maybe you want HBO, etc.  It would be reasonable for you to pay the entire premium if that's a luxury that they simply wouldn't buy.   I'd also divide the groceries evenly if you share and share alike.  If you eat separate meals, you can buy separate groceries.   If the rent can't be split evenly but you could afford it alone, then you can just sign up for it.  If you break up with the girlfriend and/or the friend moves out, you're still fine.  You have your fancy apartment and can afford it.   The bigger problem comes if you can't afford the apartment without both the girlfriend and friend contributing.  If so, you should probably avoid this situation.  It's fragile.  Any person leaving would put you in a financially untenable position.  You can look for a new tenant to replace your friend, but you can't exactly rely on getting a new move-in girlfriend on demand.   Neither the girlfriend nor the friend can afford to be on the main lease.  In case of emergency or tragedy, they couldn't replace you as a tenant.  That's why they should sublet.  Then their obligation is to you, not to the landlord.   How much apartment would the girlfriend and friend get if you weren't involved?  What rents would they pay?  That's probably how much rent they should pay for this apartment.  You want a better apartment (or a better location)?  That's on you.   You should only do this if you want to do it.  If you want to share apartments with the girlfriend and friend, then do so.  Work out something equitable.  If you plan on moving in together to reduce your costs, then you don't sound like you are compatible.  Obviously there are reasons to move in with the girlfriend aside from costs.  Why can't the friend get his or her own place?  The added rent probably won't do more than pay for the added room (you could get a one bedroom without the friend).   That points to an alternative way of calculating the friend's contribution:  the difference between a two bedroom and a one bedroom apartment.  That's the additional cost of the bigger apartment.  If the friend can't afford that, then this might not be a good idea.   Make sure that you can afford the apartment if one or both of the friend and girlfriend move out.  You can eventually replace the friend as the tenant but don't rely on doing the same with the girlfriend.  Share utilities evenly.  Possibly groceries too.  The friend should pay at least the added cost of the additional bedroom.  Don't expect either to pay more in the new apartment than they would pay without you.  You should be the only one on the main lease; sublet to them.

I work for a punlically traded company. There are plenty of people who work very hard and are smarter than a lptbofbthe executives I know. He could be a cyborg, butbifbhe is the cfo by 29, he had to jump a fuckton of hurdles to get there.

Oh, man, you are in for a life of disappointment if you think it's this easy. Ask your dad why he didn't think of this idea years ago. Owning and maintaining a business is quite difficult, and the business owners I know are stressed out and work hard just like everyone else. (Except with the added benefit that many people hate them and say that they've only been successful due to dishonesty.)  But, if you want to start, look at your profit and loss statement (you do calculate one, right?) and determine how much additional fixed cost you can afford. Look into local employment law with your lawyer and determine how much an employee would cost. Then figure out the duties you want them to do, and check local job postings to see if someone in your local labor market will meet those needs for the compensation you can give. If so, determine the value of those contributions. If the value is greater than the costs, go ahead and hire. Rinse and repeat.

"Um... I wonder why Monsanto has a provision in their licensing contracts to restrict purchasers from replanting seeds from year to year? Must be because no one ever replants seeds...  Go have a look at the Monsanto vs Schmeiser case. Not all, but a few farmers actually develop their own varieties of seeds from... Gasp... Their own plants! This poor sod had the misfortune if having his field contaminated by Monsanto seeds. Which he did not plant. Yes, his intent was questionable when he harvested the seeds from plants he know came from Monsanto seeds to use them for development, yet it remains that farmers do replant seeds, and fields do get invaded by the GMO seeds.   Edit: should os said ""I has been said that the TPP and the TAP"" contain those provisions, as the documents aren't public, and all if this is hearsay... From the news outlets..."

There is no law that requires you to have a separate bank account for your business, or to pay all expenses from a business bank account. It is a GOOD IDEA to have a separate bank account and pay all business expenses from that account and all personal expenses from your personal account, because that makes sorting out what is what much simpler, both in case of an audit and for your own accounting. Whether a particular expenditure is a deductible business expense has nothing to do with what account you pay it from. If you pay advertising expenses for your business from your personal account, that's still (almost certainly) a deductible business expense. If you buy groceries from your business account, that's almost certainly not a deductible business expense. In your case, there are all kinds of rules about when and how much travel is deductible.

"I would say ""yes"" to your question.  CD's purchased from a bank on your behalf by your broker will be FDIC insured and safe.  However, be aware that no one is examining the broker except you to ensure that each CD is actually purchased from an FDIC insured bank.  Don't trust them blindly. See risks mentioned by the FDIC on the subject Remember, the broker should not originate the CD, so the broker's lack of FDIC protection is irrelevant.  The job of a broker is to buy things on your behalf.  If your broker does that appropriately and sticks with FDIC insured CD's, you will be insured. Given the risks and gotchas mentioned in the link, buying directly from a bank instead of through your broker still sounds like good advice to me but you can make your own decision based on your level of trust and aversion to inconvenience."

"I think a big part of this is sports coverage like he brought up. The only programming I miss from cable are live sports events. Luckily for me my favorite sport, the NFL, has kept games on non-cable television for local markets even when their games are on cable. Otherwise I might actually buy it.   What keeps TV in the game though are the contracts and blackout restrictions. I'm a big Wisconsin sports fan. I dropped cable in favor of picking up the MLB and NBA online options. The MLB one streamed game and looked great. The HD was spectacular and the service good. The NBA wasn't as great quality but definitely better than a free stream, plus I could pick up to 8 teams I wanted to watch. However, because of blackout restrictions and TV contracts I could never watch a Bucks or a Brewers game. The sole reason I purchased the products was to watch my hometown teams but the TV contracts prevented it. The NFL AFAIK only offers NFL replay--you can watch any NFL game 24 hours after it has been played. Anyone looking for a change in these policies can look elsewhere too. The NFL just signed a 10 year deal with television companies. Unless those channels want to start streaming the games on their websites it's not going to happen, unfortunately.   I personally think the leagues are losing profit because they're losing a large audience. There are plenty of customers who stream games illegally online that would happily pay for a higher quality product, but television is preventing this.   Also there has always been the excuse laid out by TV execs that ""we don't know how to properly monetize this content on the internet."" That excuse worked 5-10 years ago. I can't seem to buy it now anymore."


Question: What happens to bank account of non-resident alien who falls out of status?

Nothing happens. A bank is a business; your relationship with the bank doesn't change because your visa or immigration status changes. Money held in the account is still held in the account. Interest paid on the account is still taxable. And so on. If the account is inactive long enough, abandoned account rules may apply, but that still has nothing to do with your status.

http://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/index.html  FDIC currently insures up to $250,000.  (I would have put that as a comment to Jeffery but it says it was locked.) You don't want to put all your eggs in one basket.  If you shop around, and keep shopping all the time you can keep your accounts in a single place so long as that single place provides the best deal.  Don't have any loyalty to your banking institutions because they don't have any loyalty to you. Also, having lots of accounts means you are familiar with lots of institutions, so you are likely better at shopping around. Things I consider. For fewer institutions: For more institutions:

Well sure but derivatives valuations that you see on this chart are complete bs. Normally the derivative (future or a swap) is actually worth zero. What this chart is tallying up is the notional which is an arbitrary number only used to calculate the P&L on the derivative. Sorry but this is not really the value of the derivative, so hard to see how derivatives on this chart make any sense at all.

"Employers withhold at rates specified in Circular E issued by the IR. You can request that  additional money be withheld (not an issue here) or you can have  reduced withholding by claiming additional allowances on a W-4 (i.e.,  more than just for you and spouse and dependents) if you believe that  this will result in withholding that will more closely match the tax due.  (Note added in edit):Page 2 of the W-4 form has worksheets that can be used to figure out how many additional allowances to request. Also, I wonder if your withholding will be 37% or final tax bill be  26% of your adjusted gross income.  The tax brackets are the tax  on marginal income. If you are in the 28% tax bracket, you owe 28 cents in tax for each additional dollar of income, not 28 cents in tax for every dollar of income.  Your overall tax might well be less than 20% of your income.  As a specific example, in 2011 a married taxpayer filing jointly would be in the  (highest) 35% tax bracket if the taxable income was $379,150 or more (marginal tax rate of 35% is applicable to every dollar more than $379,150) but the tax on  $379,150 itself works out to be $102,574 or 27.05% of the taxable income. So if you do expect to be earning around $350K or more in salary between now and December 31 to hit that 26% that you expect you will owe, you might want to consider paying a tax accountant for advice on how to fill out your W-4 form for your new employer rather than relying on an Internet forum such as this for free advice. Note added in edit:  Your comment ""... it is a cocktail of ... federal taxes, state taxes, local taxes, health care ..."" on the earlier version of my answer does raise the question of whether you want your employer to withhold 26% instead of 37% and have the money go to meet all these obligations or just 26% towards your Federal income tax liability only. The Federal W-4 form affects only how much money is withheld from your paycheck and sent to the US Treasury.  Some of the money that each of your employers withholds (Social Security and Medicare taxes) is not affected by what you put down on  the W-4 form.  Now, if you hold two jobs and the total income shown on your W-2s is larger than the SS limit, you will  have had too much Social Security taxes withheld, and the excess will be a credit towards your Federal income tax liability.  You have self-employment income too on which you owe Social Security and Medicare taxes and you are making estimated tax payments. The excess Social Security tax payment can count towards this too (as well as income tax on your Schedule C income).  Thus, if your new employer is withholding too much, you might be able to skip making the fourth quarterly payment of estimated tax or make a reduced payment (there is no requirement that the four installments  must be equal).  In short, there are lots of ramifications that you need to take into account before deciding that 26% is the right number. Instead of filling out a W-4  all by yourself right away, I strongly recommend  reading up a lot on income taxes, or play with a tax preparation program (last year's version will do a pretty good job of at least getting you in the right ballpark), or consult with a tax accountant."

Wanna know why? Like a year or two ago, corporate made all of the stores buy these stupid wood-smoked gas grills for like $15k each.  Many franchisees sued.  This is probably the fallout.  We still have the grills, we just don't put the wood in

"A $1 note and four quarters are both real money, but how (and when) they become real money is different. The important thing is that the Fed's stockpile of cash that it gets from the Bureau of Engraving and Printing isn't ""real money"" (i.e. M0) yet. That cash is only used for fulfilling withdrawals from reserve accounts. You can't use it to buy a car, or a house, or to pay Janet Yellen's salary...no one, not even Janet, can use even a single dollar to buy a Diet Coke. In other words, it's not really an asset. Or a liability. Or anything but a stack of paper in the Fed's vaults that looks astonishingly like money, but isn't. The upside to this is that when the BEP makes a delivery of fresh bills to the Fed, or when the Fed destroys old, ratty bills that aren't usable anymore, the Fed's balance sheet doesn't change. That's good! Those are practical considerations, not financial ones. The downside is that there's nothing on the asset side of the sheet to explain how the Fed's liability to a bank is reduced when the bank makes a cash withdrawal from its reserve account. So the Fed balances it's balance sheet by recording an increase in a different liability: the cash in circulation. Kinda like transferring the balance on a credit card: you're paying down one liability by increasing another one. It looks a bit silly, but less silly than recording the destruction of old bills as an ""expense"" of the face value of the bills. Coins, on the other hand, become money as soon as the Treasury gets them from the Mint. If they wanted to, they could pay their employees' salaries by ordering coins from the Mint for cheap, giving them to their employees at face value, and reaping fat profits as a result. In fact, that's pretty much exactly what they do: when someone wants quarters, the Treasury mints them at less than face value and then sells them at face value. In practice the Fed does all of this buying and then distributes the coins according to demand. The important thing is that this bunch of coins is not like the Fed's stockpile of bills. It's already real money, and therefore shows up as an asset. Not much. If the Fed bought coins at the cheaper price from the Mint instead, stockpiled them like they stockpile bills, then distributed them as usual, the extra profit just goes to the Treasury anyway, like all the Fed's profit does. However, as things are, the Fed's purchases of coins are recorded on the Fed's balance sheet at face value, which is kinda silly."

For the lazy:  1.     Learn to fly  2.     Look after me, you, boat  3.     Entertain everybody with me  4.     Invite nice people back  5.     Start getting the small house together at The Manor  6.     Start buying odds and sods for The Manor  7.     Work with me on projects/sort me out  8.     More shops to be found

Because libertarian ideology dominates mainstream economics, and that is because many billionaire-backed 'think tanks' promote it. The same thing happened pre-Great Depression; lots of Harvard economists arguing in favour of whatever their rich sponsors wanted. Read The Great Depression by the economist John Kenneth Galbraith; the parallels are distressing.


Question: Is it really possible to get rich in only a few years by investing?

Yes, it's possible. However, it's not likely, at least not for most people. Earning a million is not that difficult, but when you talk about billions that's an entirely different story. I think the key point that you're missing is leverage. It's common knowledge that Warren Buffett likes to have a huge cash warchest at his disposal and does not soak himself in debt. However, in his early years Buffett did not get to where he's at by investing only his own money. He ran what was basically a hedge fund and leveraged other peoples' money in the market. This magnified his returns quite substantially. If you look at Buffett's investments, you'll notice that he had a handful of HUGE wins in his portfolio and many more just mediocre success stories. Not everything he invested in turned to gold, but his portfolio was rocketed by the large wins that continued to compound over many years because he held them for so long. Also, consider the fact that Buffett's wealth is largely measured in Berkshire stock. This stock is a reflection of anticipated future earnings by the company. There's no way that alone could turn   $10k in 1950 into $50B today... could   it? Why not? Take the two founders of Google for example, they became billionaires in short order when Google had it's IPO and basically started in a garage with very little cash. Of course, they didn't do this by buying and selling shares. There are many paths to earnings enormous sums of money like the people you're talking about, but one characteristic that the richest people in society seem to have in common is that they all own their own companies.

"It's a decision that only you can make. What are the chances that you'll want to take another loan (any loan - car, credit card, installment plan for new fridge, whatever else)? What are the chances that with the bad credit you'll find it hard to rent a place (and in Cali it's hard to rent a place right now, believe me, I bought a place just to save on the rent)? What are the chances that the prices will bounce and your ""on-paper"" loss will be recovered by the time you actually need/want to sell the house? You have to check all these and make a wise decision considering all the pros and cons in your personal case."

Edit: I a in the United States, seek advice from someone who is also in Australia.  I am getting about 5.5% per year by investing in a fund (ticker:PGF) that, in turn, buys preferred stock in banks. Preferred stock acts a bit like a bond and a bit like a stock.  The price is very stable. However, a bank account is FDIC insured (in the USA) and an investment is not. I use the Reinvestment program at Scottrade so that the monthly dividends are automatically reinvested with no commission. However I do not know if this is available outside of the United States.  Investing yealds greater returns but exposes you to greater risk. You have to know your risk tolerance.

Businesses from food to retail, all assume the risk of spoilage, theft, or any form of lost assets. It's just business. With that said, I'm sure your mom didn't imagine too many ways she could've lost out when opening her nailshop. I'm unsure what the policy is that you're looking for, but my best advice to you would be to cut your losses and learn from this.  Hopefully you and your mother can be sure to check or figure out a system to ensure customers don't lie about their payments. Good luck

"A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away, Rollover IRAs were used for funds that came from (were rolled over from) a 401(k) account or a 403(b) account. All that money (including any earnings in the interim) could be rolled over into a 401(k) plan with a new employer etc.  One could make a regular contribution to a Rollover IRA but once such a commingling of money occurred, none of the money in the Rollover IRA could be rolled over into a 401(k) account etc. In those good old days when contributions to IRAs were made by paper check and ""deposit slip"", one had to write a letter to the Rollover IRA custodian certifying that the IRA owner understood that the contribution would destroy forever the possibility of rolling over the money into another 401(k) etc. All this went by the wayside a few years ago when the law changed and the distinction between Rollover IRAs and ordinary Traditional IRAs was eliminated. Commingling of IRA contributions and Rollover money from 401(k)s are permitted, and the entire IRA balance could be rolled over into a new 401(k) plan (provided the new plan accepted rollovers). However the adjectives still persist; like chili555, I too have IRAs that are still called Rollover IRA, they all have commingled funds, and if the law ever changes back, none of those IRA accounts would be eligible for rolling over into a new 401(k)."

Congrats! That's a solid accomplishment for someone who is not even in college yet. I graduated college 3 years ago and I wish I was able to save more in college than I did. The rule of thumb with saving: the earlier the better.  My personal portfolio for retirement is comprised of four areas: Roth IRA contributions, 401k contributions, HSA contributions, Stock Market One of the greatest things about the college I attended was its co-op program. I had 3 internships - each were full time positions for 6 months. I strongly recommend, if its available, finding an internship for whatever major you are looking into. It will not only convince you that the career path you chose is what you want to do, but there are added benefits specifically in regards to retirement and savings. In all three of my co-ops I was able to apply 8% of my paycheck to my company's 401k plan. They also had matching available. As a result, my 401k had a pretty substantial savings amount by the time I graduated college. To circle back to your question, I would recommend investing the money into a Roth IRA or the stock market. I personally have yet to invest a significant amount of money in the stock market. Instead, I have been maxing out my retirement for the last three years. That means I'm adding 18k to my 401k, 5.5k to my Roth, and adding ~3k to my HSA (there are limits to each of these and you can find them online). Compounded interest is amazing (I'm just going to leave this here... https://www.moneyunder30.com/power-of-compound-interest).

FTFY:  Repeat after me: Monopolization can only occur when there is a *corrupt* government to limit the emergence of competitors.   How about we stop voting for the limited government idiots and start electing people who have the best interests of the American people at heart.

"> people these days believe income is a human right or something.  I believe a full day's work for a living wage is a right, yes.  Do you think a full day's work for a non-living wage is moral?  > if you are not happy with the amount of income you currently make, stop using the internet to bitch about it and use it to better and add value to yourself.  Your argument ignores the possibility that the game is rigged.  People can do things to get a better life in the Hunger Games but that doesn't mean they are fair/moral or part of a society I want to live in.  > The idea of ""a fair share of income"" teeters on communism, if you ask me.  In our society we need farm workers, ditch diggers, security guards, and dishwashers.  It seems fair to me that if society needs these positions filled then they should pay a wage that allows these workers to be part of the society they enable. I think doing anything else is barbaric."


Question: Should I keep copies of my business's invoices for tax records?

It's always beneficial to have detailed business records.  There are any number of reasons where you'd need to prove both the types of services you've rendered and the payment history - you've already noted audits (for IRS taxes).  Other possibilities: Whether these records need to be original or electronic might be the topic for another question.

Investing in individual long-term fixed income instruments now is probably not going to make you much money right now unless you do intend to hold onto the thing and it's low yield for 15 years. The yield is actually not the best out there, see these similar examples: I'm a more aggressive and active investor, so I'd never consider making a 15 year commitment to a low rate like this. If you value stability and safety, and don't care about inflation protection, you may find this an attractive investment. I'm using New York municipal bond funds that I bought a few months back for the stable/safety portion of my portfolio. (I'm a NY resident, so there is a tax benefit)

I understand your point, but at the end of the day the CEO does know why businesses like his aren't doing well and yet they are still unable to be competitive. That is one of the cornerstones of capitalism, so as entitled as it sounds (I personally don't think it's entitlement) they actually do need to change their entire business model or die and start over. That's a sad fact, but you can't be upset that people generally have less money to spend these days.

America is an oligarchy, not a democracy or republic. The richest people in the country pay congress to introduce more bills so they can get richer.   This problem is not going away, and the wealth gap is going to continue to widen, and poverty is going to continue to rise.

If I understand correctly you describe putting a hold on an appartment as such: A sum of money that you give to the owner of the appartment to let them hold it for you because you are probably going to rent. In case you back out of the deal, this money can mitigate the expected loss from turning down other candidates. After asking them to hold the appartment for you, you decided not to rent. Also, you used the bank to get back the hold sum. Regardless of the legal details, it seems very clear to me that after putting down a hold and walking away, you should not get the money back.  There may have been some things that distracted/confused you (call about the key), but if you actually look at the things that happened it seems both right and practical to pay them their reclaimed hold as soon as possible.

As Waldfee says, CFDs are a derivative (of the underlying stock in this case). If you are from the USA then they are prohibited in the USA as has also been mentioned. They are not prohibited, however, in many other countries including Australia.  We can buy or short sell (on a limited number of securities) CFDs on Australian securities, USA securities and securities from many other countries, on FX, and different commodities. The reason you are paying much less than the actial stock price is worth is because you are buying on margin. When you go long you pay interest on overnight positions, and when you go short you recieve interest on overnight positions (that is if you hold the position open overnight). Most CFDs are over the counter, however in Australia (don't know about other countries) we also have exchange traded CFDs called ASX CFDs. I have tried both ASX CFDs and over the counter CFDs and prefer the over the counter CFDs because the broker provides a market which closely but not exactly follows the underlying prices. Wlth the exchange traded CFDs there was low liquidity due to being quite new so there was the potential to be gapped quite considerably. This might improve as the market grows. All in all, once you understand how they work and what is involved in trading them, they are much easier than options or futers. However, if you are going to trade anything first get yourself educated, have a trading plan and risk management strategy, and paper trade before putting real money on the table. And remember, if you are in the USA, you are actually prohibited from trading CFDs. Regarding the price of AAPL at $50, the price should be the same as that of the underlying stock, it is just that your initial outlay will be less than buying the stock directly because you are buying on margin. Your initial outlay may be as little as 5% or lower, depending on the underlying stock.

"You sold $10,000 worth of stock so that money is essentially yours.  However, you sold this stock without actually owning any which means that you, through your broker, are currently borrowing shares amounting to (at the time of your sale) $10,000 from someone who actually owns this stock. You will be paying this person interest for the privilege of borrowing their shares, the exact amount charged varies wildly and depends on factors such as short interest in the stock (loads of people want to go short = shareholders can charge high interest) etc. If I remember correctly hovering over the ""position"" column in your portfolio in the IB Workstation should give you information about the interest rate charged.  You will have to buy back these shares from the lender at some point which is why the $10k isn't just ""free money."" If the stock has gone up in price in the meantime you are going to be paying more than the $10k you got for the same amount of shares and vice versa."

One reason to prefer a dividend-paying stock is when you don't plan to reinvest the dividends.  For example, if you're retired and living off the income from your investments, a dividend-paying stock can give you a relatively stable income.


Question: Are there capital gains taxes or dividend taxes if I invest in the U.S. stock market from outside of the country?

Found a great article (with bibliography) that covers taxation on investment activity by non resident aliens - even covers the special 15% tax on dividends for Canadian residents. It's (dividend tax rate) generally 30% for other NRAs  (your 2nd question). And it confirmed my suspicion that there are no capital gains taxes for NRAs. (1st Q) Source: http://invest-faq.com/articles/tax-non-us-nat.html

Now manage your router via Linksys smart wifi tools. It let users control or modify home network remotely. So, if you also want new updates directly into your Linksys router then enable this amazing feature today. To know let us know on Toll-free number & do live chat directly with the experts.

"Literally got into an argument with someone from Silicon Valley about this. He was 100% convinced that the entire world revolved around them and that were it not for Silicon Valley there wouldn't be any jobs paying 6 figures in other states because ""Silicon Valley creates all the jobs"""

"We provide the old Indian motorcycle spare parts online in the world. On the earth, many people are loved for a vintage motorcycle. But old motorcycle spare parts getting the very difficult. If you are looking Vintage Motorcycles for Sale, then ""Geloman's Indian Spares"" is the best platform for you. You can book in your order online. We will provide you motorcycle With commitment time to minimum shipment charges."

DayPassWireless is a provider of wireless air card rentals, Wi-Fi rental and mobile hotspots rentals nationwide. Sprint, Verizon and AT&T air cards are available on rent for one day to several months with daily rates ranging between $4.79 and $9.79.

Before answering specific question, you are liable to pay tax as per your bracket on the income generated. I work with my partner and currently we transfer all earning on my personal bank account. Can this create any issue for me? If you are paying your partner from your account, you would need to maintain proper paperwork to show the portion of money transferred is not income to you. Alternatively create a join Current Account. Move funds there and then move it to your respective accounts. Which sort off account should be talk and by whose name? Can be any account [Savings/Current]. If you are doing more withdrawls open Current else open Savings. It does not matter on whos name the account is. Paperwork to show income matters from tax point of view. What should we take care while transfering money from freelance site to bank? Nothing specific Is there any other alternative to bank? There is paypal etc. However ultimately it flows into a Bank Account. What are other things to be kept in mind? Keep proper record of actual income of each of you, along with expenses. There are certain expenses you can claim from income, for example laptop, internet, mobile phone etc. Consult a CA he will be able to guide and it does not cost much.

"Clearing means processing unsettled transactions. Specifically - all the money transfers between the banks, in this case. Clearing Bank for RMB business means that all RMB transactions will be cleared through that specific bank. If bank A in Hong Kong gets a check drawn on Bank B in Hong Kong, and the check is in RMB - A will go to the BoC with the check and will get the money, and BoC will take the money from B. That obviously requires both A and B have accounts with BoC. ""Sole"" clearing house means there's only one. I.e.: in our example, A and B cannot settle the check through C where they both happen to have accounts, or directly with each other. They MUST utilize the services of BoC."


Question: Do I have to repay the First-Time Homebuyers tax credit if I refinance?

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.

My wife and I set up a shared bank account. We knew the monthly costs of the mortgage and estimated the cost of utilities. Each month, we transferred enough to cover these, plus about 20% so we could make an extra mortgage payment each year and build up an emergency fund, and did so using automatic transactions. Other shared expenses such as groceries, we handled on an ad-hoc basis, settling up every month or three. We initially just split everything 50-50 because we both earned roughly the same income. When that changed, we ended up going with a 60-40 split. We maintained our separate bank accounts, though this may have changed in the future. A system like this may work for you, or may at least provide a starting point for a discussion. And I do strongly advise having a frank and open discussion on these points. Dealing with money can be tricky in the bounds of a marriage.

Inefficiency is about time spent producing.  If money funnels towards producing rather than (example) gambling, even if producing costs more the money is removed from gambling economy to producing economy.  And if people increase production and speed due to better pay, it's more efficient.    It's never that simple, but it's an important point.

My brother is worried as in US a transaction of more than 10K can be flagged by IRS. Transactions may be flagged to IRS or any other regulators as required. If the intent is correct, there is nothing wrong, your Brother would have to establish that it was for legit reason. Will it be safe to transfer through wire to wire Transfer or is there any other alternatives All legit transfer mechanism would have the same reporting regulation. There is no one better than other method. As stated earlier, if the purpose is bonafide, there shouldn't be anything to worry about.

I don't see how it contrasts with any other the other advise here.  I even gave the advice to hold people accountable.  If anything my advise was more hard-line then most that's been given here.  I think you either misread what I wrote or you're completely off base.

The heart of the problem is that nothing visible/substantial is happening before the next election cycle, so nobody will address the issue. Deeply ingrained myopia for difficult problems prevents most long time-horizon issues from getting a lot of political attention. It's much easier to ignore the issue and pretend that it will go away or be resolved by others.   Secondly, politicians are less likely to speak about any subject that hasn't been funded and pumped-up by lobbyists. The only people speaking about this problem have no lobbyists/money, therefore, they have no political representation.

"Well, I'd probably need to buy a lot more [Tide](http://nymag.com/news/features/tide-detergent-drugs-2013-1) to hide any purchases I don't want Uncle Sam to know about (not just drugs, either - When's the last time you paid sales tax at a yard sale?).   Other than that, I doubt it would matter much.  99.9% of my financial transactions are *already* on plastic, and I regularly keep the same ""emergency $20 bill"" in my wallet for months at a time."

Excellent responses so far.  Because I am a math guy, I wanted to stress the power of compounding. It's great that you are thinking about saving and your future when you are so young.  Definitely be displined about your saving and investing.  You would be surprised how just a small amount can compound over the years. For example, if you were to start with $5000 and contribute $100 per month.  Assuming that you can get 5% ROR (hard in today's world but shouldn't be down the road), your final principal after 28 years (when you are 50 years old) will be over $90,000, which of only $38,000 is what you contributed yourself.  The rest is interest.  You can play with the numbers here: http://www.math.com/students/calculators/source/compound.htm


Question: Pros and cons of investing in a cheaper vs expensive index funds that track the same index

As has been pointed out, one isn't cheaper than the other. One may have a lower price per share than the other, but that's not the same thing. Let's pretend that the total market valuation of all the stocks within the index was $10,000,000. (Look, I said let's pretend.) You want to invest $1,000. For the time being, let's also pretend that your purchasing 0.01% of all the stock won't affect prices anywhere. One company splits the index into 10,000 parts worth $1,000 each. The other splits the same index into 10,000,000 parts worth $1 each. Both track the underlying index perfectly. If you invest $1,000 with the first company, you get one part; if you invest $1,000 with the second, you get 1,000 parts. Ignoring spreads, transaction fees and the like, immediately after the purchase, both are worth exactly $1,000 to you. Now, suppose the index goes up 2%. The first company's shares of the index (of which you would have exactly one) are now worth $1,020 each, and the second company's shares of the index (of which you would have exactly 1,000) are worth $1.02 each. In each case, you now have index shares valued at $1,020 for a 2% increase ($1,020 / $1,000 = 1.02 = 102% of your original investment). As you can see, there is no reason to look at the price per share unless you have to buy in terms of whole shares, which is common in the stock market but not necessarily common at all in mutual funds. Because in this case, both funds track the same underlying index, there is no real reason to purchase one rather than the other because you believe they will perform differently. In an ideal world, the two will perform exactly equally. The way to compare the price of mutual funds is to look at the expense ratio. The lower the expense ratio is, the cheaper the fund is, and the less of your money is being eroded every day in fees. Unless you have some very good reason to do differently, that is how you should compare the price of any investment vehicles that track the same underlying commodity (in this case, the S&P 500).

Interactive Brokers provides historical intraday data including Bid, Ask, Last Trade and Volume for the majority of stocks. You can chart the data, download it to Excel or use it in your own application through their API.  EDIT: Compared to other solutions (like FreeStockCharts.com for instance), Interactive Brokers provides not only historic intraday LAST**** trades **but also historic BID and ASK data, which is very useful information if you want to design your own trading system.  I have enclosed a screenshot to the chart parameter window and a link to the API description.

"No, I agreed with a situational abstract a few comments ago. The moment you say that the Government has a responsibility to provide anything, you get into what exactly that thing is (in this case a ""stable environment"").  I agree with the founding fathers.   Life  Liberty  The Pursuit of Happiness"

I didn't say you had to have had everything handed to you... I said you could also just be naive.  And judging from your subsequent paragraph, you are.  Not everyone can choose their lot in life.  Though I will say the price of education is absurdly bloated and alternatives to education may be a nice alternative.  Though truth be told, for me at least, college was an invaluable experience.

"I don't think there's a rule -- (I can't comment) but Brick cited IRS rules...but IMO Brick missed one thing -- @ashur668 is not looking for a distribution, but is looking for a rollover. My best guess:  that this part of the ruleset is not well defined, and your (and my) employer have chosen to interpret any withdrawl as a ""distribution"", even if better characterized a rollover. A few months ago, I went so far as to explore if I could use a loophole -- my company had just gone through a merger; I was hoping I could rollover some or maybe all of my 401k to my IRA (I remember now, it would have been everything before starting roth 401k contributions).  My company asserted this was not permitted, and further asserted that the rumors I had heard were mistaken that when we went through a company spin-off a few years before, that nobody under 59 1/2 was permitted to roll over. I did a quick search and found IRS topic 413  As far as I can tell, this topic is silent on the matter at hand. Topic 413 referred me to IRS Publication 575, where I started looking at the section on rollovers.  I read some of it then got bored. Note that we're one step removed -- we are reading IRS publications and interpretations of IRS rules.  I don't know that anybody here has read the actual tax law.  There may be something in there that prevents companies from rolling over before 59 1/2 that is not well codified in IRS publications."

You need a source of delisted historical data. Such data is typically only available from paid sources. According to my records, Lawson Software Inc listed on the NASDAQ on 7 Dec 2001 and delisted on 6 Jul 2011.  Its final traded price was $11.23.  It was taken over by Infor who bid $11.25 per share. Source: Symbol LWSN-201107 within Premium Data US delisted stocks historical data set available from http://www.premiumdata.net/products/premiumdata/ushistorical.php Disclosure: I am a co-owner of Norgate / Premium Data.

What you propose is to convert unsecured debt into secured debt. Conversion of unsecured debt into secured debt is not generally a good idea (several reasons).  The debt you currently owe does not have assets securing the debt, so the creditor knows they are exposed to risk, and may be more willing to negotiate or relax terms on the debt, should you encounter problems.  When you provide an asset to secure debt, you lose freedom to sell that asset.  When you incur debt their is usually a spending problem that needs to be corrected, which is typically not fixed when a refinance solution is used.  You do not mention interest rate, which would be one benefit to conversion of unsecured to secured debt, so you probably are not gaining adequate benefit from the conversion strategy. This strategy is often contemplated using 'cash-out' refinancing to borrow against a home you already own, and the (claimed) benefit is often to lower the interest rate on the debt.  Your scenario is more complicated in that you have not purchased the home (yet).  Though it may be a good idea to purchase a home, that choice depends on a different set of considerations (children, job stability, rental vs. buy costs, lifestyle, expected appreciation, etc) from how to best handle a large debt (income vs. expenses, how to increase income or reduce expenses, lifestyle, priorities, etc). Another consideration is that you already have a problem with the large debt owed to one (set of) creditor(s), and you have a plan which would shift the risk/exposure to another (set of) creditor(s) who may have been less complicit in accruing the original debt.  Was the debt incurred jointly during the marriage, and something you accepted responsibility to repay? You mention that you make great income, and you specify one expense (rent), but you neither provided the amount of income, total of all your expenses, nor your free cash flow amount, nor any indication of percentages spent on rent, essential expenses, lifestyle, nor amount available to retire debt.  Since you did not provide specifics, we can take a look at three scenarios, scenario #1, $4000/month income scenario #1, $6000/month income scenario #1, $8000/month income Depending upon your income and choices, you might have < $500/month to pay towards debt, or as much as $3000/month to pay towards debt, and depending upon interest rate (which OP did not provide), this debt could take < 2 years to pay or > 5 years to pay. Have you accepted the responsibility for the debt?  It will be a tough task to repay the debt.  And you will learn that debt comes with a cost as you repay it.  One problem people often encounter when they refinance debt is they have not changed the habits which produced the debt.  So they often continue their spending habits and incur new unsecured debt, landing them back in the same problem position, but with the increased secured debt combined with additional new unsecured debt.  Challenge yourself to repay a specific portion of the debt in a specific time, and consider ways to reduce your expenses (and/or increase your income) to provide more money to repay the debt quicker. As you also did not disclose your assets, it is hard to know whether you could repay a portion of the debt from assets you already own.  It makes sense to sell assets that have a low (or zero) return to repay debt that has a high interest rate.  Perhaps you have substantial assets that you are reluctant to sell, but that you could sell to repay a large part of the debt?

"Serious, what a stupid bitch. That was a reasonable policy to have. You can't just say there's a life threatening situation and then go ""oh, nevermind"" when you change your mind when you don't get what you want. This woman should apologize for wasting everyone else's time"


Question: Sale of house profit gifted to child

1) You parents will have to pay tax on the gain as it wasn't their primary home.  You don’t pay Capital Gains Tax when you sell (or ‘dispose of’) your home if all of the following apply: As I look at it, it is your parents are the ones who own the property and they will have to pay on £60000. But as you say you pay part of the mortgage, I would go to a tax advisor/accountant to confirm if they will only pay on the £15000. I couldn't find any guidance on that matter on gov.uk 2) Inheritance tax will not be levied on it as it is below £325000, but tax will be levied on £325000, less £3000 annual gift allowance. Two articles for further information -  GOV.UK's Tax when you sell your home   Money.co.UK's Gifting money to your children: FAQs

"As stated in the other answer, debit card payments even contactless ones, do not debit instantly or anywhere near instantly. They can take several days or even longer. However, the fact that the payment was approved would indicate that the contactless device used by the retailer managed to connect to your bank account and could see there were sufficient funds.  At this time the payment should also have ""reserved"" the funds so it will be ""pending"" as such.  Your online banking may not show all types of pending transactions, it may only show Direct Debits for example, if you ring the bank I expect they will be able to see this payment and advise accordingly, out of interest who do you bank with? If you can see your ""available"" funds you should find that includes this payment having been ""reserved"" ie you can't use that money, but if it's a small amount you may struggle to spot it.  Again, this will vary by bank and how their internet banking system has been implemented. I would expect this payment to debit your account the working day after you made it, or at worst the day after that.  In theory with ""faster payment"" technology it could happened within 2 hours but not all banks implemented that system in the same way so delays can and do occur.  If the retailer/merchant banks with the same bank you do, in theory the transaction could be instantaneous, again depending on the bank. Short answer short, the transaction is fine, it won't be void, you just need to wait, probably a day or two. This link has more info, especially useful if you bank with NatWest (as I say the technology is likely to vary by bank to some extent).  Your own bank should have their own version of this. http://personal.natwest.com/personal/current-accounts/your-visa-debit-card/contactless.html"

That there are more jobs today isn't a convincing argument. There are more people to feed, more services to provide etc. I worry that large scale automation, particularly in industries with high employment numbers could be disruptive to the economy in general. As new technologies emerge and demand continues to pace population growth, additional workers will always be needed. The question is, what happens when the majority of those jobs are taken by robots, not people.

Does not surprise me in the least. Sony has zero innovation now. Their audio products are shit. Their TV production is hitting the end of the line. The PS3 barely survived launch and they were beaten badly by an affordable, innovative, and horrendously underpowered competitor. Their online store is a fucking joke and they spend too much time pandering to companies like Capcom and Konami (who have nothing but tapped out IP's now and they keep trying to leech as much out of them as they can which, after RE6 reviews have shown, is about to implode under their own weight). The Vita is not doing well at all and it's library of games is missing high demand games and most of them are ports of their lackluster PS3 counter parts.    I hope their president can turn this shit around, but his task and the depth of the issues may make that impossible. He's just starting to play catch up right now and it's going to be some time before they can surpass anyone.  They need to cut the fat, ditch what's not working for them and never will again (like their smart phones), and focus on innovation instead of beating old ideas into the ground and copycatting their competitors (i.e. PS Move).

"Is evaluating stocks just a loss of time if the stock is traded very much? Not at all! Making sound investment decisions based on fundamental analysis of companies will help you to do decide whether a given company is right for you and your risk appetite. Investing is not a zero-sum game, and you can achieve a positive long-term (or short-term, depending on what you're after) outcome for yourself without compromising your ability to sleep at night if you take the time to become acquainted with the companies that you are investing in. How can you ensure that your evaluation is more precise than the   market ones which consists of the evaluation of thousands of people   and professionals? For the average individual, the answer is often simply ""you probably cannot"". But you don't have to set the bar that high - what you can do is ensure that your evaluation gives you a better understanding of your investment and allows you to better align it with your investment objectives. You don't have to beat the professionals, you just have to lose less money than you would by paying them to make the decision for you."

There was a comic (which I thought might have been on the oatmeal, I can't find it, found it originally on reddit though) where they show a guy who's great in his department and is promoted, great again, promoted, repeat until he's not great... but then they can't demote him, because his old spot's filled, so he's stuck there where he sucks.  edit: apparently [tuna-fish2](http://www.reddit.com/r/business/comments/nfc8k/famous_last_words_by_bosses_ive_had/c38pfza) says it's the Peter Principle

And the world keeps turning and turning and turning Trump is more out of his depth on Tuesday than on Monday Now there is no one left to disarm but the American people After all, what do sheeple need weapons for?  Perhaps American exceptionalism is a synonym for American psychosis as our sanity takes its final blind step over the edge and we must turn inwards as the ability to externalize our threats has been lost  Tuesday comes . . .  Whats the worst that could happen?

... yes you do, that is exactly how our system is set up... that is basically the whole point of the judicial branch...   The whole point is that the legislative branch has to do something in order to balance the system, but if they don't do anything that doesn't stop the rest of the government from using their constitutional powers...