"Did you even read the article?  These were people who went into the store and did this in person.  there are no ""orders"" to cancel.  As for invalidating the cards, again, the article stated that many people took the Target gift cards and used them to buy Amex and Visa gift cards.    tl;dr **RTFA**"


I guarantee you that this won't put a kabosh on the problem for all of retail. I work in a specialty cheese shop located inside a grocery store. For most cheeses, we tag pieces that are cut off of a wheel for 30 days. This is not a use-by date, in any way. This is simply a good estimate for how long it will *look* fresh. The actual use by date varies by cheese, and is typically several *weeks* later then the date you'll see on the label (longest being about a month). Fact is that most customers just don't buy product that doesn't look damn perfect, and a piece of cheese simply looks worse after 30 days of sitting under display lights (bleaching) and being handled every day. For packaged Nestle shit this will work fine, but for fresh cut or specialty items? Nah. Y'all just won't buy it.


At least with US tax law where you only pay taxes at the higher rate for the income above the minimum for that tax bracket, you will always wind up ahead taking the raise if you are simply concerned with after tax (FICA) income.  For example, assume you were making $8,350 (the top end of the 10% bracket in the US), and got a $100 raise, you would be taxed roughly as follows: After Tax Income Before Raise: $8,350 x (100% - 10%) After Tax Income After Raise: $8,350 x (100%-10%) +  $100 x (100%-15%) You can easily see that the second number is always higher than the first as long as the raise is a positive amount (obviously).


I don't see why people always boast about fox having higher ratings while griping that they're the only one of the big national cable names that's friendly to the Republicans and hard on Democrats.  Shouldn't it be a given that they'll have higher ratings in that situation? They pander to their base while the other stations have to split one between them.


Step back and take a deep breath. Pay your mortgage. repeat 1 and 2 monthly until equity > mortgage.


The advice above is generally good, but the one catch I haven't seen addressed is which specific laws apply.  You said that you are in Arkansas, but the dealer is in Texas.  This means that the laws of at least two different states are in play, possibly three if the contract contains a clause stating that disputes will be handled in a certain jurisdiction, and you are going to have to do some research to figure out what actually applies.   One thing that may significantly impact this issue is whether you were in TX or AR when you signed the contracts.  If you borrowed the money in TX, and the lender is in TX, then it is almost certain that the laws of Texas will govern.  However, if you were living in AR at the time you acquired the loan, particularly if you were in AR when you signed the papers, you have a decent case for claiming that the laws of Arkansas govern.  I don't know enough about either state to know if one is more favorable to the consumer than the other, but it is a question you really want to have answered.  That said, I would be shocked if any state did not have provisions requiring the lender to provide a copy of the terms and a detailed statement of the account and transaction history upon request.  Spend some time on the web site of the Texas attorney general and/or legislator (because that is where the lender is, they are more likely to respect Texas law) to see if you can track down any specific laws or codes that you can reference.  You might also look into the federal consumer protection laws, though I can't think of one off hand that would apply in the scenario you have described.   Then work on putting together a letter asking them to provide a copy of the contract and a full history of the account.  As others noted, make sure you send it certified/return receipt, or better yet use a private carrier such as fedex, and check the box about requiring a signature. Above all you need to get the dialog transferred to a written form.  I can not stress this point enough.  Everything you tell them or ask for from here out needs to be done in a written format.  If they call you about anything, tell them you want to see their issue/offer in writing before you will consider it. You do not necessarily need a lawyer to do any of this, but you do need to know the applicable laws.  Do the research to know what your legal standing is.  Involve a lawyer if you feel you need to, but I have successfully battled several large utility companies and collection agencies into behaving without needing one.


Well to start with I would make sure that the interest total you are collecting each month is greater than the interest total you are paying each month on your credit card debt.  So if you have $200 a month in interest you pay the credit card company I would make sure that the interest you collect on the loan is more than $200 a month.  And make sure that you use some portion of the principle payment to pay down the credit card debt so that you are still even or ahead of the interest you owe the credit card company. Beyond that I would want the rate to be higher than the borrower could expect from a bank.  This will incentivize the borrower to either pay it off early or refinance the loan through a bank effectively paying it off early for you.  Anything that shifts the risk off of you and onto someone else is in your favor here. You could also implement some sort of final payment fee and reduce this fee by a certain amount (presumably up to 100%) if it is paid off early.  I would graduate that amount so there is still incentive if the buyer misses the original date but still incentive to meet the date.  If the loan was for 10 years then I would probably do around .5% per year early.   I would also get an attorney to draw up the loan paperwork to make sure that you(and potentially your heirs) are covered should you need to recover from a default, bankruptcy, or other potential problems.  I would bet the lawyer fees will save you 5x+ the amount if only in headaches.  And if you are dealing with family the lawyer makes a great fall guy to say I wish I could do that but the lawyer won't let me if the family member tries to take advantage.


The only thing keeping me subscribed to cable TV is sports. I don't want to have to go to a bar to just casually watch a game (NFL, MLB, NBA, EPL) and it's awesome watching it in HD. What do you guys do for sports? Do you just subscribe to the internet packages for each?


What is tax slavery? Most impacted by higher taxes can afford to put them in off shore accounts.   This going to hurt the economy because businesses aren't going to higher more people. Trickle down economics consistently fails.  You'll have a bunch of owners saving the profits instead of giving the jobs because most of them are already operating efficiently.  Especially in a state where menial labor is the most common form.  Tax Slavery is a bullshit term to justify the rich robbing the government of their due while being able to benefit from the clout that comes with being American.


>It is well known that the US entered an unprecedented depression after its unprecedented borrowing during World War 2.  Yeah, just ignore ALL of the differences between the world *then* (devastated and destroyed factories & cities all over Europe and Asia) and the world *now*.  Ignorance... it's what's for dinner!


It would be difficult, but it's a statistical task, and you'd need to refer to a competent statistician to really get a sense of what sort of certainty could be derived from the available data.  I believe that you'd start by looking over your state-by-state data on a granular level to try to find if there was any persistent correlation between Amazon's market penetration in a particular area and employment data from the retail industry.  With regards to Ma & Pa's complaint, you're sort of wrong and sort of right.  Obviously they have no direct knowledge that online retail was responsible for the decline in sales that they saw.  In terms of sustainability and mismanagement, however, they can show you their books.  If the business had been established from some time it would be easy to see whether it had indeed been a sustainable business model in prior years.  Sustainability and mismanagement, however, are Scotsmen when it comes to reasoning about causes.  In measuring the effect of Amazon's entry into the market on local businesses, we can just as easily use a model that assumes a perfect market, that inefficiencies on the part of Ma^1 & Pa^1 would lead them to be displaced by Ma^2 & Pa^2, and that on average Ma^x & Pa^x manage their business sufficiently well to extract an optimal return on effort.    If circumstances are such that the role of vendor is not fungible, and the supply of Mas and Pas does not respond to the demand for family stores, then I don't actually know how to do the math, but on the other hand I do recognize a smoking gun.


I think you're missing the point. We all have things we are good at and we all have styles we like to do it in. Was Bach's skills nature or nurture, I think we can assume both. If he had the same nurture in a different time period where a different form of music was dominant would he have found as much success? We can't truly know, but perhaps, perhaps not. If his childhood was different, if his parents were different, would he even have been a musician or a composer? Again, perhaps, perhaps not. Luck is how our parents raised us, the teachers we get in school, the friends we make, how our peers treat us, the year we were born, the random events of our lives, and so much more.   To some degree we make our own luck, yes, but to suggest that we all are dealt the same hand to play with or that all hands are equal is lunacy.


This is a fantastic post, and it reminds me a lot of [this radio show from Planet Money and This American Life](http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/423/the-invention-of-money) which anyone who's interested in learning a little more about this or needs another explanation should definitely look into.


gnasher729's answer is fundamentally correct and deserves the checkmark, but I'd like to give an economic explanation for how this economically functions. The key point from gnasher729's answer's that the interest rate is 49.9% for one company. While this may be much higher than the equilibrium rate, the true market interest rate, it is not completely unreasonable because of the risk. For credit to be continually produced, default risk must be compensated because this is a cost to the lender.  Most are not in business to lose money, so making loans to borrowers that default 40% of the time would make this interest rate reasonable. For UK citizens, this would not be such a problem because the lender can usually pursue the borrower for the balance, but if the borrower can disavow the loan and leave the legal reach of the UK creditors, the collection rate is 0%. The guarantee by the foreign persons not present in the UK is incidental and probably more of a regulatory requirement since the inability to collect from them is just as unlikely. One should always look for the lowest price with at least minimum quality when shopping for anything, but you are right to be apprehensive legally.  Read every line and be sure that you yourself understand every clause before signing. If alternative cheaper financing is available, it is probably superior.


Former pension/retirement/401(k) administrator here.  1.  If you don't want to bother with maintaining your own investments, you can 'roll-over' your existing 401(k) into *your new company's 401(k) plan*.  Then you will choose your investments in the new plan, you will be 100% vested in 'rollover account'.  2.  If you want control over your own investments (recommended!) you can roll over your existing 401(k) into an IRA (Individual Retirement Account).  Then *your entire account* will go into your new IRA.  3.  You can take part, or all, of your existing account as cash, paid directly to you.  Note that this will trigger *20% mandatory Federal Withholding* on whatever goes straight to you.  So some of your money is going to the IRS.


It wasn't just a mortgage crisis. It was debit crisis. Everyone was impacted. If you want to focus of just the housing market, people who owned a home and had a steady job with equity in the house didn't get hit as hard as others because they had time to wait for the rebound. People who put down 3% on a home they couldn't afford with a unsteady job are probably still not recovered and never will be.


Because people should not be discriminated against in the work place because of their politics, religion, gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. Frankly, Im alarmed that this tenant of democracy is being disputed. I dont want to live in a democracy where people have to have two sets of political beliefs. One they put forth to appease their employer and the other they keep secret.


Yeah. Definitely fast food enemies. The only fries I like better than Arby's are McDonalds' fries. So tasty! I will admit that the burgers there are not great, but do love to grab a bundle of the little cheap ones. They're basically just ketchup/cheese sandwiches on buns. And the McChicken is great too, especially the new one with Cheddar and Onions on top.  As to horsey sauce, it is a horseradish mayonnaise blend. Mmmmm. I am sorry for your food poisoning. Arby's is a franchise-based model, so the quality can vary a lot.


"> When you only other choice is OR DIE, it's pretty much slavery. Getting to choose your master, oh I'm sorry, ""career path"" is just mincing words.  What do you think would happen if there were no other humans around? You'd have to work or die.  > You have no choice but to work for somebody to sustain yourself. You can't leave society and go your own way; All land is owned in some form or another and to do so is illegal. ergo, you have no real choices and you are beholden to a system with the illusion of freedom.  That's basically true, except there are giant areas of forest in the US or in Canada that you could live in, if you really want to ditch the comforts of society.  > But you are anything but free.  I can't say I disagree with you there. The amount of regulations and licensing that it takes to do anything in the US is insane.   > Look up the term wage slavery.  Haha, I'm familiar with this term  > Honestly, old time slaves may have actually had it better than what we have today. At least the master was obligated to take care of his slaves and provide food, shelter, and medical care as his slaves were his investment in labor.  I see what you're getting at, but you're wrong. It's pretty easy to type that from in front of a computer screen without someone dragging you out to the fields for 14 hours a day to bend over and pick cotton in the hot sun.  > Today, the slaves have to fend for themselves. They need to purchase housing, education (modern day slaves have to secure their own training before they can become adequate servants), and healthcare.  You have a really twisted view of what slavery is. I mean, I get that you're doing it semi-tongue in cheek, but it's coming of very /r/im14andthisisdeep.  Here, I'll use your terminology: ""Moder day slaves"" get to live in their own house that they paid for with the money that they earned from their consensual slavery. Thanks to capitalism, even without health insurance, they still have access to insanely higher level of healthcare than slaves in the confederate south. Even just the ability to look up and treat a problem on their own.  I left out the education part because if you think slaves in america were educated, well... maybe you are a slave.  > The masters sure have it good these days, they don't even have to put forth any of the effort their predecessors did.  Yea, it takes zero effort to write a business plan, secure investments, manage a team and bring a vision into the world. That's why everybody does it.  > And the best part? They can just dump them whenever they see fit. Let the servants worry about their own upkeep! After all, there is always a nice surplus of fresh up and coming laborers!  I wouldn't want to force someone to keep another person employed any more than I'd want to force that person to be employed.  > *citation Needed*  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPH4jl5kGp4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLc7VCznliU"


I wanted to know that what if the remaining 40% of 60% in a LTV (Loan to Value ratio ) for buying a home is not paid but the borrower only wants to get 60% of the total amount of home loan that is being provided by lending company. Generally, A lending company {say Bank] will not part with their funds unless you first pay your portion of the funds. This is essentially to safeguard their interest. Let's say they pay the 60% [either to you or to the seller]; The title is still with Seller as full payment is not made. Now if you default, the Bank has no recourse against the seller [who still owns the title] and you are not paying. Some Banks may allow a schedule where the 60/40 may be applied to every payment made. This would be case to case basis. The deal could be done with only paying 20% in the beginning to the buyer and then I have to pay EMI's of $7451.  The lending company is offering you 1.1 million assuming that you are paying 700K and the title will be yours. This would safeguard the Banks interest. Now if you default, the Bank can take possession of the house and recover the funds, a distress sale may be mean the house goes for less than 1.8 M; say for 1.4 million. The Bank would take back the 1.1 million plus interest and other closing costs. So if you can close the deal by paying only 20%, Bank would ask you to close this first and then lend you any money. This way if you are not able to pay the balance as per the deal agreement, you would be in loss and not the Bank.


If this is your money, and if you can - if asked - prove that you legally made it, there is no limit. You pay taxes on your income, so sending it into the world is tax free. Your citizenship is not relevant for that.


I omitted Germany and France because they are in fact doing well.  But I am not going to say someone is healthy just because their lungs are fine but they are suffering from stomach cancer.  Finland and Denmark can not be compared to the US in any meaningful way as most of our states have higher populations than their entire country.  Hell, we have cities that have a higher population than their entire country.


"> all we need to do is show that such a thought process is theoretically sound in order to throw that premise into serious question  Not really.  You're splitting hairs.  If you want to suggest that Wall Street enjoys tax paying, the onus is on you.  > But if the actuaries can't figure out a way to do it, then wouldn't that be cause to reevaluate the blind faith many people place in markets?  I feel like I'm a freshman in college again.  There are *plenty* of examples of market failures.  The temptation is to say that merely because there *is* a market failure, that therefore control by means of bureaucrats is necessary, without considering whether there is also a bureaucratic failure or whether the possibility of failure is as high as the original market scenario.  A power plant causes pollution, leading to reduced air quality and quality of life for the surrounding population.  This is a problem!  The power plant is imposing a cost on me and I deserve to be compensated.  ""Therefore, bureaucrats!""  Fine.  But now you've shifted the problem from simply compensating for pollution to figuring out how on earth to do it fairly.  And you've introduced a means for abuse of the system, incentivizing people to live closer to the problem or claim damages they don't have.  Power plants still require a profit to operate, so costs will rise.  We're now charging people more money to go to the company to then go back to the people with the additional inefficiency of a government watch group.  Is the original scenario a problem?  Absolutely.  It's a failure of the free market to correctly provide according to individual's rights since everyone's air is collectively polluted.  Is the alternative better?  I don't know.  It's certainly more complicated.  > which is an asinine thing to do if you're concerned with actually changing the system  Why do you think this, exactly?  I agree with you, but I'm curious if we agree for the same reasons.  I agree for the same reason I don't give my alcoholic family members any money at the end of the month."


I do all of my living at work, that way I don't miss out on any money! As soon as I step out the door I walk next door, where I live, and go to sleep, till I go back in the next morning. No lost opportunities for THIS fella!


You can invest more that 20,000 in Infrastructure bonds, however the tax benefit is only on 20,000. Further the interest earned is taxable. The best guaranteed post tax returns is on PPF. So invest a substantial sum in this. As your age group low you can afford to take risk and hence could also look at investing in ELSS [Mutual Fund].   A note on each of these investments:  LIC: If you have taken any of the endowment / Money Back plan, remember the returns are very low around 5-6%. It would make more sense to buy a pure term plan at fraction of the cost and invest the remaining premium into even PPF or FD that would give you more return.  NSC/Postal Savings: They are a good option, however the interest is taxable. There is a locking of 6 years.  PPF: The locking is large 15 years although one can do partial withdrawals after 7 years. The interest is not taxable.  ULIP: These are market linked plans with Insurance and balance invested into markets. The charges for initial few years is quite high, plus the returns are not comparable to the normal Mutual Funds. Invest in this only if one needs less paper and doesn't want to track things separately.  ELSS/Mutual Fund: These offer good market returns, but there is a risk of market. As you are young you can afford to take the risk. Most of the ELSS have given average results that are still higher than FD or PPF.  Pension Plan: This is a good way to accumulate for retirement. Invest some small amount in this and do not take any insurance on it. Go for pure equity as you can still take the risk. This ensures that you have a kit for retirement. Check out the terms and conditions as to how you need to purchase annuity at the term end etc.


Probably keeping in his back pocket. Is it possible releasing Fannie and Freddie from conservatorship would kill Obamacare? Mnuchin has stated that the funds from the NWS are used to pay for it. Maybe Trump is keeping it as a last ditch, to use if Republicans can't repeal?


Are there any IRS regulations I should be aware of when sending money to India? None. As long as you are following the standard banking channels. You are also declaring all the accounts held outside US in your tax returns. FBAR. Is it legal to do so?  Yes it is legal. do I have to declare how much I am investing and pay extra taxes? As part of FBAR. Income earned [including interest, capital gains, etc] needs to be paid in India [there are some exemptions for example interest on NRE accounts] as well as in the US [relief can be claimed under DTAA Indian version here and US here]. So if you already have paid taxes on salary and say transfer USD 10K to India; there is no tax on this 10K. If this 10K generates an income of say 2K; this 2K is taxable as per normal classification and rules.


It's a practical, marketable major. If that's what you want to do, go for it. Regardless of the major you choose, the best jobs will be competitive. Some majors are total shit, finance is not one of them. Good luck!


This is Rob Bennett, the fellow who developed the Valuation-Informed Indexing strategy and the fellow who is discussed in the comment above. The facts stated in that comment are accurate -- I went to a zero stock allocation in the Summer of 1996 because of my belief in Robert Shiller's research showing that valuations affect long-term returns. The conclusion stated, that I have said that I do not myself follow the strategy, is of course silly. If I believe in it, why wouldn't I follow it? It's true that this is a long-term strategy. That's by design. I see that as a benefit, not a bad thing. It's certainly true that VII presumes that the Efficient Market Theory is invalid. If I thought that the market were efficient, I would endorse Buy-and-Hold. All of the conventional investing advice of recent decades follows logically from a belief in the Efficient Market Theory. The only problem I have with that advice is that Shiller's research discredits the Efficient Market Theory. There is no one stock allocation that everyone following a VII strategy should adopt any more than there is any one stock allocation that everyone following a Buy-and-Hold strategy should adopt. My personal circumstances have called for a zero stock allocation. But I generally recommend that the typical middle-class investor go with a 20 percent stock allocation even at times when stock prices are insanely high. You have to make adjustments for your personal financial circumstances. It is certainly fair to say that it is strange that stock prices have remained insanely high for so long. What people are missing is that we have never before had claims that Buy-and-Hold strategies are supported by academic research. Those claims caused the biggest bull market in history and it will take some time for the widespread belief in such claims to diminish. We are in the process of seeing that happen today.  The good news is that, once there is a consensus that Buy-and-Hold can never work, we will likely have the greatest period of economic growth in U.S. history. The power of academic research has been used to support Buy-and-Hold for decades now because of the widespread belief that the market is efficient. Turn that around and investors will possess a stronger belief in the need to practice long-term market timing than they have ever possessed before. In that sort of environment, both bull markets and bear markets become logical impossibilities. Emotional extremes in one direction beget emotional extremes in the other direction. The stock market has been more emotional in the past 16 years than it has ever been in any earlier time (this is evidenced by the wild P/E10 numbers that have applied for that entire time-period). Now that we are seeing the losses that follow from investing in highly emotional ways, we may see rational strategies becoming exceptionally popular for an exceptionally long period of time. I certainly hope so! The comment above that this will not work for individual stocks is correct. This works only for those investing in indexes. The academic research shows that there has never yet in 140 years of data been a time when Valuation-Informed Indexing has not provided far higher long-term returns at greatly diminished risk. But VII is not a strategy designed for stock pickers. There is no reason to believe that it would work for stock pickers. Thanks much for giving this new investing strategy some thought and consideration and for inviting comments that help investors to understand both points of view about it. Rob


Now, you can save your money with the best service in the greater West Palm Beach Escape Rooms. Our team corporate with every customer. We have a different puzzle activity to solve that with a clue. These escape games are very challenging and will require every ounce of creativity you possess. It is the best place and secure for the couple who wants to get benefits with corporate events west palm beach. The West Palm Beach Escape Rooms are one of the most exclusive areas in the Florida and it is a perfect balance between fun and adventure with dashes of interesting facts along the way.


An ironic one is hoe Microsoft became to large in the first place. Gates bought DOS and then improved on the technology, while making it more accessible. This is what led to the huge market share difference between Microsoft and Apple prior to the ipod/iPhone era


"TLDR:  You will probably need to move to a different employer to get the raise you want/need/deserve. Some employers, in the US, punish longevity through a number of practices.  My wife worked as a nurse for about 20 years.  During that time she had many employers, leveraging raises with job changes.  She quit nursing about 6 years ago and was being paid $38/hour at the time.  She had a friend that worked in the same system for 18 years.  They had the same position in the same hospital that friend's current rate of pay:  $26/hour.  You probably don't want to be that person. Given your Stack Overflow participation, I would assume you are some type of web developer.  I would recommend updating your resume, and moving for a 20% increase or more.  You'll get it as it is a great time to be a web developer.  Spending on IT tends to go in cycles, and right now budgets are very healthy for hiring new talent.   While your current company might not have enough money in the budget to give you a raise, they would not hesitate hiring someone with your skills at 95K if they had an opening.  Its common, but frustrating to all that are involved except the bean counters that looks at people like us as commodities.   Think about this:  both sides of the table agree that you deserve a 5K raise.  But lets say next year only 3k is in the budget.   So you are out the 5k you should have been given this year, plus the 2k that you won't get, plus whatever raise was fair for you next year.  That is a lot of money!  Time to go! Don't bother on holding onto any illusions of a counter offer by your current employer.  There will be too much resentment.  Shake the dust off your feet and move on.    Edit: Some naysayers will cite short work histories as problems for future employment.  It could happen in a small number of shops, but short work histories are common in technology that recruiters rarely bat an eye.  If they do, as with any objection, it is up to you to sell yourself.  In Cracking the Code Interview the author cites that no one is really expecting you to stay beyond 5 years.   Something like this would work just fine:  ""I left Acme because there were indications of poor financial health.  Given the hot market at the time I was able to find a new position without the worry of pending layoffs.""  If you are a contractor six month assignments are the norm.  Also many technology resumes have overlapping assignments.  Its what happens when someone is in demand."


In terms of gameplay and experience, I don't agree.  The Wii with the Wii remotes were innovative imo, with the right IP to back it up: Zelda, Mario, etc.  While that was a main feature of the console, Kinect, eye toy, and even now VR are add-ons.


"If you are just barely scraping by on your current income, then you shouldn't be thinking about buying a car or house unless you can present (at least to yourself) clear evidence that doing so will actually lower your monthly expenses. Yes, there are times when even buying depreciating assets such as a car can lower your expenses, but you need to think hard about whether that is the case or if it is just something you want to get because you feel you ""should"". Remember the old adage that rich people buy themselves income streams (investments that either earn money or reduce expenses), while poor people buy expenses. If you are in the situation of barely scraping by on your current income, then the first step in my mind is to find out exactly what you are spending your money on (do this for a month or two, and then try to include non-regular or rarely-occuring bills such as subscriptions, insurance, perhaps utilities, and so on). Once you know where your money is going right now, outline that in a budget. At this point, you aren't judging your spending, but rather simply looking at the facts. Once you have a decent idea of where your money is going, only then try to think about what you can cut back on. Some things will be easier than others to change (it's much easier to cancel a premium TV channels package than to move to cheaper living quarters, for example, although in some cases simply picking the low-hanging fruit alone won't help you). Make a revised budget for the next month based on the new numbers, and try to live by it. Keep writing down what you actually spend your money on, then rinse and repeat. (Of course, you can make a budget for whatever period of time works for you; if you get paid every two weeks, budgeting per two weeks might be easier than budgeting per month.) The bottom line is that a budget is useless without a follow-up process to see how well your spending actually matches the budgeted amounts, so you need to spend some time following up on it and making adjustments. No budget will ever match reality exactly; think of the budget as a map, not a footstep-by-footstep guide for getting from A to B. When you find some wiggle room in your budget (for example, let's say you decide to cancel the premium TV channels package you got some time ago because it turns out you aren't watching much TV anyway), don't put that money into a ""discretionary spending"" category. There is an old rule in personal finance that says pay yourself first. If you are able to find $5/month of wiggle room, put it into savings of some kind. If you are unsure what kind of savings vehicle you should use, I'd suggest starting off with a simple savings account; it certainly won't earn you a great return (you'll be lucky if you can keep up with inflation), but it will get you into the habit of saving which at this point is a lot more important. And make that savings transfer as soon as the money hits your account. If you can, get the depositor to put a portion of your income directly into the savings account; if you cannot, make the transfer yourself immediately afterwards. And try to force yourself to live with the money that's left, not touching the savings account. Ideally, you should save a decent fraction of your income - I've seen figures everywhere from 10% to 25% of your after-tax income recommended by various people - and start out by budgeting that to savings and then working with whatever is left. In practice, saving anything and putting the money anywhere is much better than saving nothing. Just make sure that the savings are liquid (easy to convert to cash and withdraw without a penalty, should the need arise), set up a regular bank transfer for whatever amount you can find in that budget, and try to forget about it until you get the bank statement for the savings account and get that warm, fuzzy feeling for actually having a decent amount of money set aside should something ever happen making you need it. Then, later, you can decide whether to use the money to buy a car, start a company, take early retirement, or something entirely different. Having the money will give you the options, and you can decide what is more important to you yourself. Just keep on saving."


Actually if you look at a loan for $115,000 over 30 years at current interest rates you would have a payment of about $500 a month. I would argue your $500 monthly payments are building equity the same way a loan repayment schedule would. Is your agreement in writing? If it is, there's nothing you can do unless they agree. If it's not then write up a contract for a $115k loan that you will pay back over 30 years at $500 a month with the amortization table. That will show how much equity you're building over time. (It's not much the first 10 years!) Note that some states require real estate contract to be in writing or else they are voidable by either party. Whatever you do, get something in writing or you'll probably either end up in court or feeling bitter for the next few decades.


"In California at least a little known secret is you don't have to pay traffic fines older than three years. I had my DL suspended for three years from 3thousand in bad tickets. I went to pay after I saved enough, and the nice lady said ""the law says you don't have to pay the fines over three years old and we can't legally hold your license and we legally can't report it to credit agencies or the DMV"" She got her gold star that day!! She said no one will tell you, but being nice sometimes gets you a long way. I'm sure most people take out their frustrations on her.  So I paid about 1300$ and walked out a happy licenced man. Thanks to that lady!!"


Thats the thing i think most people in this thread are missing: the way we shop is evolving. We are far more comfortable ordering online now than a decade ago, and it's only going to continue.   And thus actually makes sense, because our time is super valuable. For most consumers, a Best Buy is at least 15 mins away by car. So getting there and back alone is about 3% of your day. Thats a step price already, and it doesn't include the time wandering the store to find the damn thing, then standing in line, parking, etc. So unless i need the product now now now, online is fine.  So, to answer your question, you didn't really do anything wrong. We're just changing.


For some reason this can result in either   the flow through income being UNTAXED or the flow through income being   taxed as a capital gains. Either way this allows a lower tax rate for   LLC profits. I'm not sure that correct. I know it has something to do   with capital accounts. This is incorrect. As to capital accounts - these are accounts representing the members/partners' capital in the enterprise, and have nothing to do with the tax treatment of the earnings. Undistributed earnings add to the capital accounts, but they're still taxed. Also, is it true that if the LLC loses money, that loss can be offset   against other taxable income resulting in a lower total taxation? It can offset taxable income of the same kind, just like any other losses on your tax return. Generally, flow-through taxation of partnerships means that the income is taxed to the partner with the original attributes. If it is capital gains - it is taxed as capital gains. If it is earned income - it is taxed as earned income. Going through LLC/partnership doesn't re-characterize the income (going through corporation - does, in many cases).


"Typically, there are three ways an acquisition is financed. What is used is called the ""consideration"".  1.) Cash - Existing cash on the balance sheet is used. Think of it like purchasing something with your debit card.  2.) Stock - This a bit more complicated. The acquiring company issues new shares and exchanges those shares for shares of the acquiree. Because new shares are issued, this can have a dilutive effect on the stock price of the acquirer. However, it can have an accretive effect if enough synergistic value between the two companies is realized and/or expected.  3.) Debt - Basically like taking out a loan.   The ""consideration"" for a deal is often reported, as you read in your article.  Most deals are a combination of cash/stock/debt. (Debt is often referred to as ""cash"" - i.e. if you take out a loan, you are essentially receiving cash.)    When it comes to which is best to use, there are quantitative analyses for that - with a specific focus on the acquirer's EPS (Earnings per share) post-deal.  The factors that are considered are the forgone interest on cash, the additional interest gained from taking on debt, and the dilutive effects of issuing new stock. There is no right answer for which is best, as there are multiple different factors and circumstances involved across M&A deals. Each company has different borrowing rates and synergistic value expected from their deals. One big factor is the timing and stock price of both companies during the deal. If the acquirer is trading at an all time high and the acquiree is at an all time low, then perhaps an all-stock deal would be advantageous to the buyer.   Typically, companies want to avoid stock deals because they are the most dilutive."


529 is good.  Though, I would avoid other kinds of investments in kids names and or setting up accounts that are too complex or difficult to use as college costs will come in may aspects starting application fees and travel expenses when looking for college as well as housing and allowance spending.


quid's answer explains the settlement period well. However, it should be noted that you can avoid the settlement period by opening a margin account. Any specific broker like Schwab may or may not offer margin accounts. Margin accounts allow you to borrow money to avoid the settlement period or to buy more securities than you can actually afford. Note that if you buy more securities than you can afford using margin, you expose yourself to losses potentially larger than your initial investment. If you fund your account with $50,000 and use margin to purchase $80,000 of stock which then drops in value by 80% you will have lost $64,000 and owe the broker $14,000 plus fees.


The economy today is quite global, but it's not totally in sync.  Unemployment is not dropping everywhere. It's getting worse in the Muslim worlds, South Africa, Venezuela, etc.  Trust me: Trump can easily crash the USA economy, or, make it even better.  Basically, if countries work on their economy, you can see the results.


He talked about JPM's investment in blockchain tech, not about bitcoin's blockchain network. So you are right in the sense that these cryptos have their own blockchains, and he is correct that JPM and many large corp are looking at blockchain technology.     Bitcoin as a currency is a make believe store of value, full of fraud, and right now a lot of FOMO investors chasing it. But I wouldn't call it a bubble because it has not popped yet. Bubble is usually backward looking.


I don't know what rates are available to you now, but yes, if you can refinance your car at a better rate with no hidden fees, you might save some money in interest. However, there are a couple of watchouts: Your original loan was a 6 year loan, and you have 5 years remaining.  If you refinance your car with a new 6 year loan, you will be paying on your car for 7 years total, and you will end up paying more interest even though your interest rate might have gone down.  Make sure that your new loan, in addition to having a lower rate than the old loan, does not have a longer term than what you have remaining on the original loan. Make sure there aren't any hidden fees or closing costs with the new loan.  If there are, you might be paying your interest savings back to the bank in fees. If your goal is to save money in interest, consider paying off your loan early.  Scrape together extra money every month and send it in, making sure that it is applied to the principal of your loan.  This will shorten your loan and save you money on interest, and can be much more significant than refinancing.  After your loan is paid off, continue saving the amount you were spending on your car payment, so you can pay cash for your next car and save even more.


If we're including psychological considerations, then the question becomes much more complicated: will having a higher available credit increase the temptation to spend? Will eliminating 100% of a small debt provide more positive reinforcement than paying off 15% of a larger debt? Etc. If we're looking at the pure financial impact, the question is simpler. The only advantage I see to prioritizing the lower interest card is the float: when you buy something on a credit card, interest is often calculated for that purchase starting at the beginning of the next billing cycle, rather than immediately from the purchase date. I'm not clear on what policies credit card companies have on giving float for credit cards with a carried balance, so you should look into what your card's policy is.  Other than than, paying off the higher interest rate card is better than paying off the lower interest rate. On top of that, you should look into whether you qualify for any of the following options (presented from best to worst):


So your argument is, all depository banks can do the functions of an investment bank, therefore all banks were responsible for the financial crisis? Awesome argument. Do tell me how citibank is the same as JP Morgan again. How are you this dense?  Also, nothing I've said is false whereas everything you've said is.


You are talking about adjusting the basis of your property which has its own IRS publication Publication 551: Basis of Assets Assuming you've not taken depreciation on your land in any way, pages 4-5 cover the various ways you can increase the basis of your property. Improvements like paving and wiring such as your second case would increase the basis of the property and reduce your gains when you sell. Note that regular real estate taxes do NOT alter your basis. Again the IRS publication is where you should look on what activity would have altered your basis during your period of ownership.  Consult appropriate accounting and legal practitioners when in doubt.


I dunno, where did you go to school for arguing?  Let me spell it out for you: my products are all linked in the 3rd sentence of my bio on the right side of every page. I don't belabor them because I'm not trying to sell them.


This is actually not at all surprising. We've been pumping oil for a long time, it makes sense that the guys doing this are very good at knowing where the line between profit and loss is. With government handouts more operations are on the profit side. So those operations go forward.


One overarching thing to keep in mind is that wherever you go with Finance if you work hard enough and climb the ladder, you can make decent money. I know CIO's, Market Stragesits and even CFO's, Portfolio Managers and CPA's that all live extremely comfortably, and all of them work outside of the IB industry, basically, IB isn't the end-all for making large sums of money. The main reason why it pays so much upfront is that of the hours you have to work if you look at their salary at an hourly rate, it's around 10-12 bucks an hour.   Definitely think about the Double major thing though, or potentially just doing a minor. It would definitely look good on a resume, especially if it's something you also enjoy, but you've gotta keep that GPA high, and getting a 4.0 in CS is quite a challenge, to begin with.  Pretty much any of the Series certifications can help you depending on where you want to go career-wise, obviously for some positions have certain series certifications won't be useful at all. It's also worth looking into the CFA program if you plan on doing Financial Analysis, but you'll need a sponsor for this, just like the Series certifications.  Happy to help man, if you've got any other questions feel free to reach out. I'm in the same boat just trying to figure out what I want to do with my life to make decent money so I can take care of my friends and family, and live life to the fullest.


"The question that I walk away with is ""What is the cost of the downside protection?"" Disclaimer - I don't sell anything. I am not a fan of insurance as an investment, with rare exceptions. (I'll stop there, all else is a tangent) There's an appeal to looking at the distribution of stock returns. It looks a bit like a bell curve, with a median at 10% or so, and a standard deviation of 15 or so. This implies that there are some number of years on average that the market will be down, and others, about 2/3, up. Now, you wish to purchase a way of avoiding that negative return, and need to ask yourself what it's worth to do so.  The insurance company tells you (a) 2% off the top, i.e. no dividends and (b) we will clip the high end, over 9.5%.  I then am compelled to look at the numbers. Knowing that your product can't be bought and sold every year, it's appropriate to look at 10-yr rolling returns. The annual returns I see, and the return you'd have in any period. I start with 1900-2012. I see an average 9.8% with STD of 5.3%. Remember, the 10 year rolling will do a good job pushing the STD down. The return the Insurance would give you is an average 5.4%, with STD of .01. You've bought your way out of all risk, but at what cost?  From 1900-2012, my dollar grows to $30080, yours, to $406. For much of the time, treasuries were higher than your return. Much higher.  It's interesting to see how often the market is over 10% for the year, clip too many of those and you really lose out.  From 1900-2012, I count 31 negative years (ouch) but 64 years over 9.5%. The 31 averaged -13.5%, the 64, 25.3%.  The illusion of ""market gains"" is how this product is sold. Long term, they lag safe treasuries."


Many examples in Europe and other countries have shown once you break that barrier people will go to extreme lengths to avoid it. So much so back in the 80s in the UK tax rates over 75% were imposed, needless to say when they reduced it to 40% they actually got more money.   Ultimately it does more harm than good to the economy and means well paid jobs leave the country and go elsewhere. The exact same thing is happening right now with the French moving to London.  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18234930


I agree that religion shouldn't be protected. Let's get rid of this protection for Christians crap and let those little snowflakes realize that they don't get to push their make believe on others.  Disability, the unifying factor is *the disability.* There's some non-able-bodied component. Sexual orientation is biological.


"Market cap is the current value of a company's equity and is defined as the current share price multiplied by the number of shares. Please check also ""enterprise value"" for another definition of a company`s total value (enterprise value = market cap adjusted for net nebt). Regarding the second part of your question: Issuing new shares usually does not affect market cap in a significant way because the newly issued shares often result in lower share prices and dilution of the existing share holders shares."


>**Most have three wheels and do not tilt. An exception is in Cambodia, where two different types of vehicles are called tuk-tuks, one of which (also known as a remorque) has four wheels and is composed of a motorcycle (which leans) and trailer (which does not)**  Today i learned!


If you are looking to transfer money to another person in the US, you can do do with no tax consequence.  The current annual gift limit is $14k per year per person, so for example, my wife and I can gift $56k to another couple with no tax and no forms. For larger amounts, there is a lifetime exclusion that taps into your $5M+ estate tax. It requires submitting a form 709, but just paperwork, no tax would be due. This is the simplest way to gift a large sum and not have any convoluted tracking or structured loan with annual forgiveness. One form and done. (If the sum is well over $5M you should consider a professional to guide you, not a Q&A board)


No, there is no downside. I personally don't use duplicate checks.  I simply make a record of the checks I write in the check register.  A copy of the check, whether a duplicate or a photo, isn't really proof of payment for anyone but yourself, as it is very easy to write a check after the fact and put a different date on it.


I'm probably being unduly harsh, but I only have my experience to draw on.   Windshield wipers that the dealer could never get to work right  Replacing brake lights every couple of months - dealer couldn't fix   Am electronic 4wd system that fails twice, necessitating a transmission replacement at 30k miles.   This was a brand new vehicle, all under warrant protection  I used to travel a lot for work, with a lot of rental cars, and driven a lot of different cars. The GM products just always seemed a little more rattley with the worst seats for me. I had the misfortune of driving a Cruize in Europe for a few weeks and I've felt church pews that were luxurious compared to that thing - though the diesel motor (Opel made) was nice.   I compare that to the Toyotas I've driven for a couple hundred thousand miles with nothing but maintenance, and that's where I struggle.   Maybe they are better. But my experience hasn't gotten there yet.


I'm not a huge fan of tax-advantaged retirement accounts anyway, so I wouldn't fault you for not contributing even if you weren't likely to develop a disability. Do you have disability insurance?  I hope so.  If you already have the disease then you may not be able to get it now if you don't have it already because they may not cover existing conditions.  If not, try to get it however you can. You may be able to withdraw the money without much problem if you can prove it's a permanent disability.  (Information here.) Do you have 401(k) matching from your employer?  If that match is vested in a reasonable period of time, then even with the penalties you'll end up ahead. Beyond that (this wasn't part of your question but I'm just trying to help) I'd think about what kind of work you can do after you can't work at your current job.  You have the luxury of an early warning, so plan for it. Also, check out National Industries for the Blind.  Our Lions Club sells some of the Skilcraft products (brooms) as fundraisers and they're quality products.


Because collective bargaining by the gov't and your employer is the only way that we've been able to combat some of the increases. An uninsured individual will be billed 4-10x what your insurance company would pay due to collective bargaining.  The largest employers (Cisco, EMC, and others) are self-insured and pay health care providers to administer their plan. SMBs get the short end of the stick and pay much higher rates for less coverage because they don't have economies of scale.   A public option would allow any uninsured individual to obtain health care at a reasonable, income-based cost.


"Maybe if people were paying them for their political opinions, that would be a valid argument, but people are paying them for their services.      I would hope that they would do what they need to do to keep their company in business.  I don't think I've ever heard anyone say ""boy, they did lay everybody in the company off and took a few local businesses with them, but they stood by their principles"".   That's not what businesses are for."


As far as I know, you can have anybody be a beneficiary on life insurance while you are unmarried.  Once you are married, you may or may not have to have your spouse sign off (I'm not sure if it's a state or federal law).  People typically will have family, but it could just as easily be a waiter who gave you great service at a restaurant. I would suggest you look into creating a will.  Within that will, you can: This way, it should not matter as much who the guardian is, but rather who is in control of the trust.  I would imagine as long as your children are minors, the state would put them under your ex's custody (if they aren't already). Does that make sense?


I go out often to restaurants, and I've never had to wait more than 20 minutes with a reservation, and it's extremely rare than I have to wait more than 5 minutes.  If you had to wait 2 hours you were not speaking up for yourself, and that's a horribly run restaurant.


Normally if the amount of a cashiers check is over $5,000, a bank (like Wells Fargo) may put a 10 business day hold on it to make sure the transaction is sound.


Definitely not with gift cards and to a lesser degree not even with debit cards.  For most transactions they work the same but you'll run into problems when dealing with situations where a hold is placed that's higher than the transaction amount. This is the norm with gas purchases--at the time you run the card you don't know how much gas you're going to pump so they put through an authorization for some fixed amount--say $75 or $100.  If you do not have this much available it will fail and you can't use the card to purchase the gas.  Unless you're living paycheck to paycheck the debit card should work in this case but the gift card very well might not. I've also seen this happen on a larger scale with a car rental.  A co-worker only had a debit card--and the substantial hold the rental car place wanted to put on the card was unacceptable.


They've pretty much shot any credibility they possessed. Follow the money.


Good grief!  Ask a Republican to define their terminology to avoid conflict and confusion, and you get labeled a liberal.  Honestly, the stupid labeling thing is one of the most obfuscating and idiotic parts of our political discourse these day.  The idea here is to remove obfuscation so we can get to the point.  Clarify yourself!  You have declared paying government employees better than others is waste.  You’ve also declared the current government delivery system is waste.  But the whole system is NOT waste.  Parse it out.    You don’t want people paid more than a business can afford, right?  So there is no financial loss?  You don’t want a system in place that can’t afford to pay for itself, now or in the foreseeable future (after all, everyone should have a chance to recover), right?  But when you say there is waste in the government, I have to be sure you are discussing complete value, including social, educational, technological, national, military, and not just budget.  This is important because MY arguments hinge on the non-budget side, whereas yours seem to focus on the financial aspects.   Not that these are the whole of either of our views.  They are simply the focuses we have used in this discussion.  So, stop with the cheap jabs, and we’ll continue.  There are many wasteful aspects of the government.  I agree with that.   It there are many things the go ernment does that private industry either can’t or won’t do.  Biggest of these is corporations will not go out of their way to protect their citizens.  They will do what they are paid to do, and nothing else.  The postal service will probably never be closed or privatized. If it were, however, I would love too see how the cost of delivery and the pay for delivery employees are affected.  I agree the question of why government waste exists is the most important.  But in order to see it clearly, we must get a lay of the land.  We need to review two edge cases:  1) Where is the most waste?  Why is it so extreme here?  2) Where is the least waste?  Why is this part of the government more efficient?  Then we can inspect the different influences in each system and explore why efficiency isn’t enforced or encouraged in so many government areas, and what can be done to improve efficiency, or if it is an area that the nation would do better with privatization instead.


Haha, aside from the fact that consensually choosing which career path you would like to go down is not at all akin to slavery and severely diminishes what actual slaves went (and in some places still go) through, even if your premise was right, your supposition is still wrong.  People on the corner begging for money make a pretty decent amount of money with no employer. Certainly more than I make.


"It may seem weird but interest rates are set by a market. Risk is a very large component of the price that a saver will accept to deposit their money in a bank but not the only one. Essentially you are ""lending"" deposited cash to the bank that you put it in and they will lend it out at a certain risk to themselves and a certain risk to you. By diversifying who they lend to (corporations, home-buyers each other etc.) the banks mitigate a lot of the risk but lending to the bank is still a risky endeavour for the ""saver"" and the saver accepts a given interest rate for the amount of risk there is in having the money in that particular bank. The bank is also unable to diversify away all possible risk, but tries to do the best job it can. If a bank is seen to take bigger risks and therefore be in greater risk of failing (having a run on deposits) it must have a requisitely higher interest rates on deposits compared to a lower risk bank. ""Savers"" therefore ""shop around"" for the best interest rate for a given level of risk which sets the viable interest rate for that bank; any higher and the bank would not make a profit on the money that it lends out and so would not be viable as a business, any lower and savers would not deposit their money as the risk would be too high for the reward. Hence competition (or lack of it) will set the rate as a trade off between risk and return. Note that governments are also customers of the banking industry when they are issuing fixed income securities (bonds) and a good deal of the lending done by any bank is to various governments so the price that they borrow money at is a key determinant of what interest rate the bank can afford to give and are part of the competitive banking industry whether they want to be or not. Since governments in most (westernised) countries provide insurance for deposits the basic level of (perceived) risk for all of the banks in any given country is about the same. That these banks lend to each other on an incredibly regular basis (look into the overnight or repo money market if you want to see exactly how much, the rates that these banks pay to and receive from each other are governed by interbank lending rates called Libor and Euribor and are even more complicated than this answer) simply compounds this effect because it makes all of the banks reliant on each other and therefore they help each other to stay liquid (to some extent). Note that I haven't mentioned currency at all so far but this market in every country applies over a number of currencies. The way that this occurs is due to arbitrage; if I can put foreign money into a bank in a country at a rate that is higher than the rate in its native country after exchange costs and exchange rate risk I will convert all of my money to that currency and take the higher interest rate. For an ordinary individual's savings that is not really possible but remember that the large multinational banks can do exactly the same thing with billions of dollars of deposits and effectively get free money. This means that either the bank's interest rate will fall to a risk adjusted level or the exchange rate will move. Either of those moves will remove the potential for making money for nothing. In this case, therefore it is both the exchange rate risk (and costs) as well as the loan market in that country that set the interest rate in foreign currencies. Demand for loans in the foreign currency is not a major mover for the same reason. Companies importing from foreign entities need cash in foreign currencies to pay their bills and so will borrow money in other currencies to fulfil these operations which could come from deposits in the foreign currency if they were available at a lower interest rate than a loan in local currency plus the costs of exchange but the banks will be unwilling to loan to them for less than the highest return that they can get so will push up interest rates to their risk level in the same way that they did in the market before currencies were taken into account. Freedom of movement of foreign currencies, however, does move interest rates in foreign currencies as the banks want to be able to lend as much of currencies that are not freely deliverable as they can so will pay a premium for these currencies. Other political moves such as the government wanting to borrow large amounts of foreign currency etc. will also move the interest rate given for foreign currencies not just because loaning to the government is less risky but also because they sometimes pay a premium (in interest) for being able to borrow foreign currency which may balance this out. Speculation that a country may change its base interest rate will move short term rates, and can move long term rates if it is seen to be a part of a country's economic strategy. The theory behind this is deep and involved but the tl;dr answer would be the standard ""invisible hand"" response when anything market or arbitrage related is involved. references: I work in credit risk and got a colleague who is also a credit risk consultant and economist to look over it. Arbitrage theory and the repo markets are both fascinating so worth reading about!"


You are currently $30k in debt.  I realize it is tempting to purchase a new car with your new job, but increasing your debt right now is heading in the wrong direction.  Adding a new monthly payment into your budget would be a mistake, in my opinion. Here is what I would suggest.  Since you have $7k in the bank, spend up to $6k on a nice used car.  This will keep $1k in the bank for emergencies, and give you transportation without adding debt and a monthly payment.  Then you can focus on knocking out the student loans.   Won't it be nice when those student loans are gone?  By not going further into debt, you will be much closer to that day.  New cars are a luxury that you aren't in a position to splurge on yet.


A lot of good answers, but there’s one more factor: ignorance.  The majority haven’t considered it, or considered it and assumed it’s not an option without investigating.  PLUS, the widespread myth that every other country is primitive, unhealthy, and dangerous.


The simple answer is that you have to read the terms and conditions when you sign up for a checking account at the bank. The process of fraud investigation varies from bank to bank.  Ultimately most banks will refund the money if you are not deemed negligent. Some banks offer quick reimbursement during fraud claims, but many will not refund the money until the investigation is complete (which can take several weeks). Checking accounts are terrible security problems. If you're looking for ways to avoid a hassle, stop writing checks and using ATM/Debit cards. If you must send checks to pay bills, use the bill-pay system that is now common with most banks (they use a service to send checks on your behalf and don't even charge you for postage unless you ask for expedited processing).


It's not really that useful as a currency right now though, is it?    Leaving aside that you could only spend it in certain locations or the time it would take for a transaction to be confirmed, the fact that every transaction in which you pay with Bitcoin counts as a realization of the capital gain would make it quite cumbersome for most anyone to actually use it as a currency.  Then there's the issue of the fluctuating price of a bitcoin, which would make using it as a pricing mechanism quite cumbersome as well.


There are a number of ways to get out of debt. First, stop spending on that card. You could apply for a 0% APR credit card and if you qualify with a credit limit equal (or higher) than what you have now, then you could transfer the balance and start on paying that down. You could also work out a payment plan with Chase - they would rather have some of the money vs. none of it. But you need to reach out sooner rather than later to avoid having it sent to collections.  Since your cash flow is terrible, you could also pick up a second or third part time job - deliver pizzas, work at the mall, whatever, to help increase your cash flow and use that money to pay down your debts.  The Federal Trade Commission has some resources on how to cope with debt.


Jesus this is a horribly written and unnecessarily long article. Could be summed up in 3 paragraphs, and honestly, credit card processing fees isn't some conspiracy. I'd guess that most people who use credit cards are aware this is how visa and MasterCard make money.   This article is written like it's for 14 year olds.


Absolutely. I actually spoke with a man from LeBatts brewery about this story, he told me that it it was sheer luck that other breweries didn't end up using the combination of a specific clarifying agent and foaming agent which caused the snottiness.  The rest of the brewing industry was also cost-cutting but through a combination of bad luck, not knowing when to stop, and a lack of testing, it was Schlitz that became a textbook example of what not to do. Today most new/changed products use test marketing to prevent this sort of nationwide debacle.


"FTA:  >SD: And to all the young filmmakers listening, I had 5% of the net of that movie. That was in my contract. And it cost $19 million. And it made $150 million worldwide. There's no net. That's how movie math works.   I read a book some 20 years ago on screenwriting that said never to ask for a cut of the net profit, always ask for the gross. The net is what is left over after everyone else gets paid out of the gross and there's usually nothing left over.  Sleazy folks love using this confusion over net vs. gross to hoodwink people. I remember when oil companies where in the news for their record profits, there would be people posting saying ""Oh, well, I'd like to see what the net is. This doesn't take into account exploration, development, and extrapolation data flux coupling. Which is all very expensive. The gross profit means nothing."""


Part of the problem with electric cars is also that they won't allow small commuter vehicles on the roads in most states.  We have a gap between motorcycles and highway capable cars.  Vehicles that are too big to be a motorcycle, but too small to pass crash testing that's needed for a highway vehicle.  The exact size car that you would want for an inner city commute, is illegal or regulated out of usefulness in most states.


They are $67 each at Costco Pharmacy in Canada. (Two-pack $114). Even though universal medicare coverage does not include a universal drug plan, the Canadian government caps pharmaceutical profit margins, subsidizes prescriptions for certain people and negotiates drug prices for all.   (Universal pharmacare plans are still on the radar and hopefully coming soon)


You need to clarify with Bob what your agreement is. If you and Bob are working together on these jobs as partners, you should get a written partnership agreement done by a lawyer who works with software industry entity formation. You can legally be considered a partnership if you are operating a business together, even if there is nothing in writing. The partnership will have its own tax return, and you each will be allocated 50% of the profits/losses (if that's what you agree to). This amount will be reported on your own individual 1040 as self-employment income. Since you have now lost all the expense deductions you would have taken on your Schedule C, and any home office deduction, it's a good idea to put language in the partnership agreement stating that the partnership will reimburse partners for their out-of-pocket expenses. If Bob is just hiring you as a contractor, you give him your SSN, and he issues you a 1099, like any other client. This should be a situation where you invoice him for the amount you are charging. Same thing with Joe - figure out if you're hiring him as an independent contractor, or if you have a partnership. Either way, you will owe income and self-employment tax on your profits. In the case of a partnership, the amount will be on the K-1 from the partnership return. For an independent contractor who's operating as a sole proprietor, you report the income you invoiced for and received, and deduct your expenses, including independent contractors that you hired, on your Schedule C. Talk to your tax guy about quarterly estimated payments. If you don't have a tax guy, go get one. Find somebody people in your city working in your industry recommend. A good tax person will save you more money than they cost. IRS Circular 230 Notice: Please note that any tax advice contained in this communication is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by anyone to avoid penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law.


Spectrum-wise, Sprint is actually in the best position of all four major carriers. They have enough nationwide 800 MHz spectrum for good voice and LTE coverage and penetration, and they have enough 2.5 GHz spectrum to outdo every other carrier in capacity. They are the one carrier that really doesn't need any more spectrum right now.  The argument about tower count is largely irrelevant with today's mobile data demand. You will find that Verizon and AT&T have built out at least as densely (and usually much moreso) as Sprint and T-Mobile, even with having 10-20 MHz of 700 MHz spectrum each, precisely because of capacity demands. All four major carriers are rolling out microwave spectrum for capacity (AWS and PCS for Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile, and BRS/EBS for Sprint), and dense site placement is going to be a necessity.  The argument about accuracy is also ridiculous considering the performance at the edge-of-cell and in the sector nulls; you're going to need multiple sites regardless if you want acceptable coverage for everyone.  The company hurting the most spectrum-wise is T-Mobile since they only own a few 700 MHz licenses and can't even use them in most places until after the FCC incentive auction next year. AT&T could use a little more microwave, but they do have 20 MHz of WCS nationwide that they're about to start deploying.  EDIT: More info:  http://www.fiercewireless.com/special-reports/how-much-lte-spectrum-do-verizon-att-sprint-and-t-mobile-have-and-where  Those charts do omit the 10x10 WCS AT&T will be deploying, as well as the PCS that Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile have/will refarm.


"This is trash. No way Willy and Markus did that to bitcoin. It's called trading.  Of course they were actively trading during a giant volatile bubble in which bitcoin jumped 1000s%  just as 10000s of other people were. Mt. Gox is credited with popping the 2013 bubble not inflating it. Even though Mt. Gox got hacked and ddos'd  all the time there is no way bitcoins price was manipulated that much by ""Willy"" and ""Markus"" as a result."


I worked for Waffle House (same sort of employee pool) for a good while, they had horrible retention rate for cooks. But in the last few years they started paying a lot better ($14.50 an hour at top rate) now they have people doing the work of what used to take 2.


"Eh, for the most part US labeling laws are pretty good. There are exceptions, but most of the time there's a reasonable argument at least. In the above example, it would need to be ""made with 100% chicken,' as opposed to ""100% chicken."" That seems fair to me. Not that misbranding never occurs, because mistakes happen, and people do also break the law, but misbranding is taken seriously. Even with no safety threat that's still a type three recall."


I'm in Estonia, so a while back I did some coding for a US company, who figured it would be cheaper to outsource to Estonia. Since I had too much on my plate at that time, I outsourced the task to a guy in the US, who was having a hard time finding a job, because of all the outsourcing.


"Okay, I  Read a large part of it and stopped. It may have some valid points, ie how chivalry may be dying because of the feminist movement and the equal positions it has created for women. However, blaming the guilt on women for dressing slutty is just as morally bad as the rapist. Rape is something of all times and places, and even in cultures where women are ""properly"" covered rape happens. It disgusts me that it is trying to justify rape by blaming the victims."


theres nothing you could probably do but hold an intervention or something, and i dont even know how effective that is. maybe gamblers anonymous? im not really sure this is the subreddit for this kind of question.


Welcome to Rustic Posy, here you buy your favorite flower bouquets at the affordable price. You simply search online, select an arrangement, schedule distribution, and pay by bank card. The whole copes need take no more than a few minutes out of your busy day. The online flower shop will handle the whole process from that point on. We have a great florist team that always manages best flower arrangements that you want. We provide a far more extensive range of blossoms on the internet than at the local plant shops. Search the most online flower shops and distribution solutions have local as well as exotic blossoms. We also provide a big selection of flowers for different events.


I've looked into Thinkorswim; my father uses it. Although better than eTrade, it wasn't quite what I was looking for. Interactive Brokers is a name I had heard a long time ago but forgotten. Thank you for that, it seems to be just what I need.


"Alright, so this is all out of the way.  As a further note, I have a degree in computer science so I'm not oblivious to the technical aspects of bitcoin.  I reject the idea that banning bitcoin is akin to banning the internet - in fact, I reject the notion that bitcoin is anywhere as revolutionary as ""the internet"" was (which itself, as a construct, is far older than most people let on).    I've always acknowledged that there are many innovative technical aspects to bitcoin which are likely to find their way into our current system of money and transactions.    The reality, however, goes back to my original contentions - that bitcoin is difficult (if not nearly impossible) to track, and thus serves as a black-market vehicle for those who wish to transact outside the power of the government.  Whether or not you see this as ""good"" or ""bad"" doesn't matter; ""the government"" within any defined national border is the plenary power - period - and thus (for lack of a better phrase) ""resistance is mostly futile."""


Yes you do. You're under the jurisdiction of at least one country where you're resident, or where you're citizen. You may be under jurisdiction of more than one country. Each country has its own laws about what and how should be taxed and countries have treaties between them to resolve jurisdiction issues and double taxation situations, so you should talk to a tax accountant licensed to provide you with an advice.


Having night outs and enjoying all your nights by waking up and playing different type of games also makes the summer season full of fun. That is one of the preferred things to do in summer season, by peoples of all age group. Visit us for more details: http://thingstodoinsummertime.blogspot.ca/


"> h that, there's pretty much no real way to look at a menial-style job and say, ""That deserves $15 an hour."" > The two reasons above combine and make a strong argument for something like a basic income or drastically  expanded welfare and safety net programs. > A further failing of the ""retrai  Agreed.  Growth always leaves certain demographics behind.    I think $15/hour is dependent on location.. in Seattle even @ $15 you're screwed.  In other areas, $15 an hour is great!    The economy is evolving whether we accept it or not.  While re-training certainly shouldn't be the only approach.. it needs to be a big part of the humane solution to displaced workers."


Eh using a benchmark that's designed for Hedge Funds is a little different. I was guessing the other comment was referring to SPX or similar for the 10%. Most people don't understand HF as investment vehicles. They are meant to be market neutral and focused on absolute returns. Yes, you can benchmark them against each other / strategy but most people here seem to think that HFs want to beat the S&P 500.


>You really shouldn't talk about things when you clearly don't put yourself in a position to be informed on the topic. You're just espousing unhelpful ignorance.  Irony.  >Oh, and also thanks for the downvote, which you broke the rules of this subreddit giving, since my comment clearly contributes to a discussion (that you decided to join). Although, I don't really care about upvotes or downvotes, so feel free to give me another. Or two. Or three. IDC you little twerp.  Its always the people that complain about being downvoted that care about their upvote count.


The short answer is: the money is yours from the insurance company, they actually can't tell you how to spend it, they can only decide from their tables and your plan, how much you get. The longer answer: Usually the insurance company pays one blanket amount, then itemizes the rest, where you have to submit receipts.  You're also lucky, because damage over time is rarely covered, damage is usually only covered as sudden damage, so they don't pay out for maintenance issues. You can repair your house the way you want, I even do some of my own labor, because some repair jobs just don't get covered what they really cost to do right.   HOWEVER, your mortgage company can withhold part of your claim to verify satisfactory work, this is to maintain the value of the collateral, and the insurance company can choose not to cover pre existing damage.  Generally they don't stray from the assessment.   I do not know of any law that permits an internal inspection of your home without your consent.  They can come look at the outside, but they can't force you to let them inspect inside... Unless they're holding some of your insurance payment hostage, for most banks, receipts are sufficient. A good contractor usually will meet all the needs with an itemized budget and has a bit of wiggle room to fix things the right way, while keeping the bank and mortgage company happy.


"Funny how you're talking about short term economics while I'm talking long term projections. Sweden is on the verge of a housing bubble far worse than the one the US saw in 2008. O don't look at last year and the year before I look at what their policies are doing for the future. You're right I've never lived in Europe but countries with a 50% tax rate on income aren't the ideal situation to live just ask switzerland the most stable and consistent economy in all of Europe and arguably the world for the last decade +. Yes they have income tax but not at an outrageous rate and they also have market and personal freedom at level that shadows what we have here ""the land of the free"" switzerland actually follows our constitution better than our own government does. This country was founded on idea of freedom and states rights. Not an over bearing over reaching federal government. As far as comparing the government to your parents house, that's a comparison clearly made by a simpleton. Your parents role in your life is to teach you responsibility and give your life structure. The government's role is to serve you not steal from you. How did the US make it so long with an income tax?"


"There are a few people that do this for a living. They are called ""market makers"" or ""specialists"" in a particular stock. First of all, this requires a lot of capital. You can get burned on a few trades, a process known as ""gambler's ruin,"" but if you have enough capital to weather the storm, you can make money. Second, you have to be ""licensed"" by the stock market authorities, because you need to have stock market trading experience and other credentials. Third, you are not allowed to buy and sell at will. In order to do your job, you have to ""balance the boat,"" that is buy, when others are selling, and sell, when others are buying, in order to keep the market moving in two directions. It's a tough job that requires a lot of experience, plus a license, but a few people can make a living doing this."


"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.thenation.com/article/america-has-a-monopoly-problem-and-its-huge/) reduced by 88%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Some century and a quarter ago, America was, in some ways, at a similar juncture: Political and economic power seemed concentrated in a few hands, in ways that were inconsonant with our democratic ideals.  > Importantly, these laws were based on the belief that concentrations of economic power inevitably would lead to concentrations in political power.  > Chicago economists would argue-with little backing in either theory or evidence-that one shouldn&#039;t even worry about monopoly: In an innovative economy, monopoly power would only be temporary, and the ensuing contest to become the monopolist maximized innovation and consumer welfare.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/78l28c/america_has_a_monopoly_problemand_its_huge/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~234550 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*: **power**^#1 **market**^#2 **economic**^#3 **economy**^#4 **Monopoly**^#5"


The shortest-hand yet most reliable metric is daily volume / total shares outstanding.  A security with a high turnover rate will be more efficient than a lower one, ceteris paribus. The practical impacts are tighter spread and lower average percentage change between trades.  A security with a spread of 0% and an average change of 0% between trades is perfectly efficient.


Sterilize the whales, enforce rules to prevent SeaWorld from ever acquiring another whale, triple the size of the living areas for the whales (or even quadruple), allow them to perform if they want to, and enforce rules that no human will touch these whales ever again unless for medical procedures (more to prevent more humans from being killed).   I feel like that would work. SeaWorld gets good PR for increasing the living area, they can't acquire anymore whales, and the whole issue is a non-issue in 20+ years when all the whales are dead and then we can go back to SeaWorld again.   Edit: I would also suggest the same thing for all of the current show animals. If they are to be kept, they can not be used in shows and must have a natural-esque habitat.


What is the per capita increase that they are anticipating for full-time employees? This is not meant to be a political question, I'm just curious what the actual number is :P  >The test entails increasing the number of workers on part-time status, meaning they work less than 30 hours a week. Under the new health care act, companies will be required to provide health care to full-time employees by 2014. That would significantly boost labor costs for businesses.


The point i wanted to make is that you can't rule out war, countries conquered/stole from each other throughout all of history, the only reason we don't now is because of prosperity. Take that away and all bets are off.   The great depression hit all corners of the globe, what's going to happen to the american debt? Whoever bought that is going to want their money back. Is china going to stay friends? What about north korea, when they see countries around them failing, they don't seem too friendly even now. Russia? We don't know enough about their culture to know what their intentions are, to them the americans are just the same, building their military same as everyone else.  The wall-street crash of 1930s was based on speculation and stock investments, the amount of shit piled up, about to explode is so many times bigger. Also, people back then were more prepared for a depression, they were more self-sustainable and lived in communities.   Really, when the economic collapse happens, a huge amount of people are going to die, people with disabilities, those needing medication, morbedly obese etc. They represent a large proportion of the population and they are going to die off within weeks of the collapse.   Without a doubt it will be worse than the great depression. I don't care about the politics, i'm not even american for starters, survive through the shitstorm first.


You can make a start to learn how to make better investing decisions by learning and understanding what your current super funds are invested in. Does the super fund give you choices of where you can invest your funds, and how often does it allow you to change your investment choices each year? If you are interested in one area of investing over others, eg property or shares, then you should learn more on this subject, as you can also start investing outside of superannuation. Your funds in superannuation are taxed less but you are unable to touch them for another 30 to 35 years. You also need to consider investing outside super to help meet your more medium term goals and grow your wealth outside of super as well. If you are interested in shares then I believe you should learn about both fundamental and technical analysis, they can help you to make wiser decisions about what to invest in and when to invest.  Above is a chart of the ASX200 over the last 20 years until January 2015. It shows the Rate Of Change (ROC) indicator below the chart. This can be used to make medium to long term decisions in the stock market by investing when the ROC is above zero and getting out of the market when the ROC is below zero. Regarding your aggressiveness in your investments, most would say that yes because you are still young you should be aggressive because you have time on your side, so if there is a downturn in your investments then you still have plenty of time for them to recover. I have a different view, and I will use the stock market as an example. Refer back to the chart above, I would be more aggressive when the ROC is above zero and less aggressive when the ROC is below zero. How can you relate this to your super fund? If it does provide you to change your investment choices, then I would be invested in more aggressive investments like shares when the ROC crosses above zero, and then when the ROC moves below zero take a less aggressive approach by moving your investments in the super fund to a more balanced or capital guaranteed strategy where less of your funds are invested in shares and more are invested in bonds and cash. You can also have a similar approach with property. Learn about the property cycles (remember super funds usually invest in commercial and industrial property rather than houses, so you would need to learn about the commercial and industrial property cycles which would be different to the residential property cycle). Regarding your question about SMSFs, if you can increase your knowledge and skills in investing, then yes switching to a SMSF will give you more control and possibly better returns. However, I would avoid switching your funds to a SMSF right now. Two reasons, firstly you would want to increase your knowledge as mentioned above, and secondly you would want to have at least $300,000 in funds before switching to a SMSF or else the setup and compliance costs would be too high as a percentage of your funds at the moment ($70,000). You do have time on your side, so whilst you are increasing your funds you can use that time to educate yourself in your areas of interest. And remember a SMSF is not only an investment vehicle whilst you are building your funds during your working life, but it is also an investment vehicle when you are retired and it becomes totally tax free during this phase, where any investment returns are tax free and any income you take out is also tax free.


"Because ETFs, unlike most other pooled investments, can be easily shorted, it is possible for institutional investors to take an arbitrage position that is long the underlying securities and short the ETF.  The result is that in a well functioning market (where ETF prices are what they should be) these institutional investors would earn a risk-free profit equal to the fee amount. How much is this amount, though? ETFs exist in a very competitive market.  Not only do they compete with each other, but with index and mutual funds and with the possibility of constructing one's own portfolio of the underlying.  ETF investors are very cost-conscious. As a result, ETF fees just barely cover their costs.  Typically, ETF providers do not even do their own trading.  They issue new shares only in exchange for a bundle of the underlying securities, so they have almost no costs.  In order for an institutional investor to make money with the arbitrage you describe, they would need to be able to carry it out for less than the fees earned by the ETF.  Unlike the ETF provider, these investors face borrowing and other shorting costs and limitations. As a result it is not profitable for them to attempt this.  Note that even if they had no costs, their maximum upside would be a few basis points per year.  Lots of low-risk investments do better than that. I'd also like to address your question about what would happen if there was an ETF with exorbitant fees.  Two things about your suggested outcome are incorrect.   If short sellers bid the price down significantly, then the shares would be cheap relative to their stream of future dividends and investors would again buy them.  In a well-functioning market, you can't bid the price of something that clearly is backed by valuable underlying assets down to near zero, as you suggest in your question. Notice that there are limitations to short selling.  The more shares are short-sold, the more difficult it is to locate share to borrow for this purpose.  At first brokers start charging additional fees.  As borrowable shares become harder to find, they require that you obtain a ""locate,"" which takes time and costs money.  Finally they will not allow you to short at all.  Unlimited short selling is not possible. If there was an ETF that charged exorbitant fees, it would fail, but not because of short sellers.  There is an even easier arbitrage strategy: Investors would buy the shares of the ETF (which would be cheaper than the value of the underlying because of the fees) and trade them back to the ETF provider in exchange for shares of the underlying.  This would drain down the underlying asset pool until it was empty.   In fact, it is this mechanism (the ability to trade ETF shares for shares of the underlying and vice versa) that keeps ETF prices fair (within a small tolerance) relative to the underlying indices."


If you have a mortgage, making part of it a mortgage-backed overdraft (ANZ call theirs a Flexi loan) is worth looking at. I'm in a similar situation, consulting since 2010. I pay GST and provisional tax every six months. If I've budgeted right, the balance on the mortgage-backed overdraft loan goes to zero right before I send the massive payment to the tax department in May and October.  One problem is that some banks don't like to give these accounts to sole traders. Using a mortgage broker may help get around that restriction.


I'm talking about transporting the goods and services necessary for a company to do business. No rent money involved. In fact, we somewhat already have that in the form of FedEx.   Now if you don't think private companies could do the same for other facets of infrastructure, then you are just confused.


Contrary to what many people think, credit card companies pass nearly all fraud costs via purchased goods onto the merchant who sells them. As a result, they stand a very high chance of getting the money from a fraudulent purchase of a specific purchased item back, as they just chargeback the merchant who has to stomach the cost. This is not the case for cash transactions obviously, where as soon as the money leaves the ATM fraudulently it is as good as gone. As a result, the risk profile of the two types of transaction is wildly different, and the credit limits of each reflect this.


It doesn't make any financial sense for you personally, because the impact on the debt would be so little it would have no significant benefit to you, and you'd be out the money you donated.