#which is fairly common and makes financial abuse even more devastating to a lot of people (including me and my mom)

[jennifersbod]

European here but... whats a credit score?

you’re so lucky to not know this. basically it’s a record of how financially risky (or not risky) you are based on past loans, credit cards, hospital payments, etc. you need to have loans or credit cards to actually have a good score, but if you’re late on a payment or pay off too much at once it’ll go down. it’s used for basically everything that’s big financially: housing (can’t qualify for most decent apartments or mortgages with bad credit), school (student loans), etc.

[realasslesbian]

not to be obtuse - but what is natalism? and why are you against it?

Well, google defines natalism as 'promotion of or advocacy for childbearing.' My gripe with it is that more children is exactly the opposite of what the world needs right now, and yet every aspect of every society on the planet is still overwhelmingly geared to promoting having more kids.

The most common 'argument' anti-natalists make is irt overpopulation's demonstrably devastating impact on the environment over the last century as our population has skyrocketed. In terms of carbon emissions alone, having one less child is more effective at reducing emissions than being strictly vegan for your whole life. Personally though, I feel like the environmental impact of having kids in a today's overpopulated world is fairly obvious (ofc most natalists would argue that, but I digress).

My bigger concern is with how countries with higher birth rates are also ALL, %100 of the time, countries with higher poverty rates. Even in first world countries having kids is strongly correlated with poverty. My very particular concern is how it's women who are most effected by child-induced poverty, because they're expected to forsake financial security so that they can stay home and take care of the kids (ultimately leaving them vulnerable to financial control and abuse from their partner, being homeless when they're elderly, etc). Countries with lower birth rates just don’t have these issues. Instead they have better social security, better retirement policies, more women in positions of power, less poverty, less crime, etc.

All the while, governments sell us this wonderful fairy tale that 'we must have more children to secure our country's economic prosperity!!1!' But whose prosperity? Because it's certainly not for the prosperity of the single mother with three kids surviving on food stamps. It's not for the homeless 80yo woman who didn't work so that she could raise her husband's litter of kids only for him (and his superannuation) to divorce her as soon as he hit retirement age. In reality it's a very much 'domestic supply of infants' situation, where having more kids actually means having more minimum wage workers available, so that the top %1 don't have to worry much about having to pay a living wage to every single one of their gazillion worker ants. I mean, valued employees.

Personally, instead of all the baby bonuses and the family welfare payments and the tax breaks per child, all of which sound nice on paper but actually do very little to make a dent in the overall obscene cost of raising a kid, I'd rather we spent that money on housing the homeless or addressing the pay gap for women or on environmental issues. At least here in Australia, where every year we spend literally billions on welfare for child-havers, we could actually instead fund a decent universal income, for everyone. But, as you can imagine, the top end of town don't like the idea of having a population who don't have to choose between working or starving. A $5000 tax payer funded baby bonus to quell the masses is a lot more cost-effective, from a business standpoint. It's just throwin the dog a bone, so to speak.

But anyway, hope that answers the question. Definitely not something to get me started on over xmas dinner lmao

[newstfionline]

Six Ways to Save Money

Eric Barker, Barking Up The Wrong Tree, December 31st, 2017.

We’d all like to have more money. (That stuff is really useful, ain’t it?)

Being worried about makin’ the bacon can end your marriage, skyrocket your blood pressure, and even cause your brain to malfunction.

According to Dollars and Sense: How We Misthink Money and How to Spend Smarter, “Money is the top reason for divorce and the number one cause of stress in Americans. People are demonstrably worse at all kinds of problem solving when they have money problems on their mind.”

Thing is, we all make dumb money mistakes, many of which we’re not even aware of. And a lot of those are due to quirks of human psychology.

Luckily, Dan Ariely, a professor of behavioral economics at Duke University, has a new book out that explains some of the problems we’re prone to when it comes to moolah and what we can do about them. The book is Dollars and Sense: How We Misthink Money and How to Spend Smarter.

Let’s look at some of what Dan has to say and see how we can save some shekels...

1) “On Sale” Signs Are The Devil

More generally, Dan’s advice is “ignore relative comparisons.” Focus on what the thing costs, not how big a discount you’re getting.

Saving 90% on a bus pass isn’t a great deal if you never take the bus--but we make dumb purchases similar to that one all the time.

It seems that discounts are a potion for stupidity. They simply dumb down our decision-making process. When an item is “on sale,” we act more quickly and with even less thought than if the product costs the same but is marked at a regular price.

And we’re assaulted by these relative comparisons all the time...

You’d never have paid a few hundred dollars for heated seats--but when you’re shelling out tens of thousands of dollars for a car, that extra seems relatively cheap--and so you say, “Ah, what the heck... Sure.” You should judge add-ons separately by their value, not by comparison.

Similarly, paying percentages can be dangerous. 5% might seem small but, again, that can be deceptive. Change the percentage into a dollar amount and objectively ask: “Am I comfortable paying this figure for this service?”

2) It’s Not A “Bonus.” Money Is Money.

Your paycheck goes toward bills and serious stuff. But that unexpected check you received in the mail? That money you won at the casino? That gift card aunt Phyllis sent you? Well, it’s okay to spend that money on frivolous goodies because that’s “different.”

No, it’s not. Money is money.

Every dollar is the same. It doesn’t matter where money comes from… just because in our mind the money belongs to the “bonuses” or “winnings” account--we need to pause, think, and remind ourselves that it’s just money. Our money.

Researchers refer to this as “emotional accounting.” Rationally, a dollar is a dollar. But as rationality-challenged humans, we feel the source of the money affects how we should use it. Bad idea.

People are likely to spend something like their salary on “responsible” things like paying bills, because it feels like “serious money.” On the other hand, money that feels fun--like $300 million in casino winnings--is likely to be spent on fun things, like more gambling.

Studies show that when $200 is called a “rebate” we’re inclined to deposit it in the bank. But when that $200 is called a “bonus” we’re more likely to buy a treat.

Many people treat a tax refund as a “bonus” that they can have fun with. Again, that’s tricky emotional accounting. You didn’t get a bonus; you gave the government an interest-free loan and they’re returning the principal.

How do we actually spend less without having to use any willpower? That’s easy. Make spending painful...

3) Use Cash More Often

Handing someone cash hurts your brain. Seriously. Neuroscience research shows it’s indistinguishable from physical pain.

But we ever-resourceful humans have found a way (many ways, actually) to spend a lot and not feel that pain. The biggest culprit? Credit cards.

Studies have found not only that people are more willing to pay when they use credit cards, but also that they make larger purchases, leave larger tips, are more likely to underestimate or forget how much they spent, and make spending decisions more quickly.

Ever find yourself treating foreign currency like it’s Monopoly money? Ever abuse that Amazon one-click button? Anything that makes transactions simpler and quicker or blurs the process of handing over greenbacks reduces the pain of paying--and makes you more likely to spend.

Writing checks doesn’t cause the same amount of ouch that forking over cash does, but it’s still pretty good because having to write out “five thousand dollars” will give you pause. But credit cards, gift cards, casino chips and nearly all online shopping is a financial opiate and dramatically reduces the pain that keeps your bank account flush.

There is an exception worthy of mention here. The vast majority of the time, increasing the pain of paying is a great idea. But there are occasions where it’s worth it to be pain-free. You don’t want to be saying “owwwww” repeatedly on your honeymoon or during other big milestones. You want to just enjoy the moment.

So whip out the plastic and have fun. But make those occasions rare.

4) “Fair” Is A Four-Letter Word

It’s pouring outside so you’re going to get an Uber. But Uber is surge pricing. “That’s unfair! Forget it. I’ll walk.”

Maybe Uber is taking advantage of you. Maybe they’re not. But the real question is: would you pay the surge price to not arrive home soaking wet? Probably. So you’re not punishing them. You’re punishing yourself.

“Fair is a four-letter word.” That’s what my friend, Chris Voss, former lead international hostage negotiator for the FBI, likes to say. And Ariely’s research agrees.

The concept of “fair” messes with our heads and causes us to reject deals that still offer plenty of value.

Let’s not get caught up in whether something is priced fairly; instead, consider what it’s worth to us. We shouldn’t pass up great value--access to our home, a salvaged computer, getting a ride in winter weather--just to punish the provider for what we think is unfairness.

The concept of “fairness” runs very deep in the human psyche. Nobody likes to feel exploited. And nobody wants to be known as someone who can be exploited.

But most of the time it doesn’t pay to get hung up on the concept of “fair.” Think about whether you’re getting reasonable value for the money you’re paying. Otherwise the person who gets punished will probably be you.

5) Try A “Ulysses Contract”

In Homer’s “The Odyssey”, Ulysses tied himself to the mast of his ship to resist the Sirens’ song.

When you’re thinking about the future you’re pretty rational. But when you’re in the moment, face it: you can be an impulsive moron. So do something now that constrains your behavior later.

Metaphorically, tie yourself to the mast of your ship with a Ulysses Contract. (Or “Odyssesus Contract” if you prefer the Greek. Hey, I’m open-minded.)

A Ulysses contract is any arrangement by which we create barriers against future temptation. We give ourselves no choice; we eliminate free will.

You probably already use a financial Ulysses Contract and don’t even realize it--you call it a 401(k). You made the decision in advance to save for retirement and now your hands are tied.

So go into your online banking account and set up a recurring automatic transfer for every time you get a paycheck. When your salary gets deposited, X amount is immediately shuttled into savings. Research shows this will help you save--a lot.

A study by Nava Ashraf, Dean Karlan, and Wesley Yin found that one group of participants who had their bank accounts restricted--that is, they chose to have money automatically deposited in a savings account--increased their savings by 81 percent within a year.

And Ulysses Contracts aren’t just good for finances; they work for almost any future temptation. Hand your keys to a friend before you go drinking. Have a pal change your passwords on social media accounts when you absolutely need to focus.

6) Drop Anchor

“Anchoring” is a potentially devastating cognitive bias where the first number mentioned in a given scenario unconsciously influences your future choices.

Well-designed menus often have a very high-priced item at the top. It doesn’t make you more likely to buy the filet mignon but it does insidiously make everything else look like a bargain.

Few people pay the manufacturer suggested retail price for a car. But that number is always big and visible when you look at the specs. Whether you realize it or not, it’s affecting the offer you end up making.

So how do you resist an anchor? By having a different anchor in advance. Do your research and know what most people end up paying for that car and the MSRP will have less influence.

Look at your regular purchases and ask if they really make sense and whether there are cheaper alternatives. Personally, I have not updated my phone plan in two decades and am still paying $9 a minute for calls.

Okay, we’re no longer money morons. So when you have more money, then you won’t need to worry about these silly psychology quirks that affect your spending, right?

Wrong.

About 16 percent of NFL players file for bankruptcy within twelve years of retirement, despite average career earnings of about $3.2 million. Some studies say the number of NFL players “under financial stress” is much higher--as high as 78 percent--within a few years of retirement. Similarly, about 60 percent of NBA basketball players are in financial trouble within five years of leaving the game. There are similar stories about lottery winners losing it all. Despite their big paydays, about 70 percent of lottery winners go broke within three years.

The more you earn, the bigger your mistakes will be. So review the common problems your grey matter has with money and learn to make smarter choices. This way you can keep your millions.

[activecapital]

A Brief Intro to Hostage Insurance Policy | Active Capital Reinsurance

Over the previous two decades, several small businesses have begun to guarantee their very own dangers via an item called "Slave Insurance coverage." Little captives (additionally known as single-parent hostages) are insurer developed by the proprietors of very closely held companies aiming to guarantee threats that are either as well pricey or also challenging to guarantee with the typical insurance coverage industry. Brad Barros, an expert in the area of captive insurance coverage, describes exactly how "all captives are dealt with as firms as well as have to be taken care of in a technique constant with regulations established with both the Internal Revenue Service and the appropriate insurance regulatory authority."

ACTIVE CAPITAL REINSURANCE PANAMA

According to Barros, usually single moms and dad hostages are had by a trust fund, partnership or various other framework established by the premium payer or his family members. When effectively created and also carried out, a company can make tax-deductible costs payments to their related-party insurer. Relying on conditions, underwriting revenues, if any kind of, can be paid out to the proprietors as rewards, and profits from liquidation of the company might be exhausted at resources gains.

Juan Antonio Nino

Costs payers and also their slaves may garner tax advantages only when the captive operates as a genuine insurance company. Additionally, consultants and also entrepreneur who utilize slaves as estate planning tools, asset defense lorries, tax deferment or various other benefits not associated with real business function of an insurer may deal with grave regulatory and also tax obligation effects.

Numerous captive insurer are often formed by US organisations in territories beyond the United States. The factor for this is that international jurisdictions provide lower costs as well as greater versatility than their United States equivalents. Generally, United States businesses can utilize foreign-based insurer so long as the territory satisfies the insurance policy regulative standards called for by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

There are a number of significant international jurisdictions whose insurance guidelines are identified as secure as well as effective. These include Bermuda and also St. Lucia. Bermuda, while extra pricey than various other territories, is residence to a lot of the largest insurance provider in the world. St. Lucia, a much more fairly priced place for smaller captives, is noteworthy for laws that are both progressive and compliant. St. Lucia is likewise acclaimed for just recently passing "Included Cell" regulations, imitated similar statutes in Washington, DC.

Usual Captive Insurance Coverage Abuses; While captives continue to be very beneficial to many organisations, some sector professionals have actually begun to poorly market and also misuse these frameworks for purposes apart from those meant by Congress. The misuses consist of the following:

1. Incorrect threat moving and also run the risk of distribution, aka "Bogus Threat Pools"

2. High deductibles in captive-pooled setups; Re guaranteeing captives via private positioning variable life insurance policy schemes

3. Improper advertising

4. Inappropriate life insurance policy combination

Fulfilling the high criteria imposed by the IRS and regional insurance coverage regulators can be a facility and also expensive suggestion and also need to only be done with the support of experienced and also skilled advise. The implications of falling short to be an insurance company can be ruining and may consist of the adhering to charges:

1. Loss of all deductions on premiums received by the insurance company

2. Loss of all reductions from the costs payer

3. Forced distribution or liquidation of all possessions from the insurer effectuating added tax obligations for capital gains or dividends

4. Potential adverse tax treatment as a Controlled Foreign Company

5. Prospective negative tax treatment as a Personal Foreign Holding Business (PFHC).

6. Prospective regulatory fines enforced by the guaranteeing territory.

7. Possible penalties as well as interest enforced by the IRS.

All in all, the tax obligation repercussions might be greater than 100% of the premiums paid to the slave. Additionally, attorneys, CPA's wide range consultants and also their customers might be treated as tax sanctuary marketers by the IRS, causing fines as excellent as $100,000 or more per transaction.

Plainly, establishing a restricted insurance provider is not something that ought to be taken lightly. It is essential that companies looking for to establish a restricted collaborate with skilled lawyers and accountants who have the requisite understanding and also experience required to stay clear of the risks connected with violent or badly created insurance coverage structures. A general guideline is that a captive insurance item need to have a legal opinion covering the vital elements of the program. It is well identified that the viewpoint must be provided by an independent, local or national law office.

Risk Shifting and Danger Circulation Misuses; 2 crucial elements of insurance are those of moving threat from the insured party to others (risk changing) as well as consequently allocating risk among a large pool of insured's (risk circulation). After years of litigation, in 2005 the IRS released a Revenue Ruling (2005-40) describing the crucial components required in order to meet danger changing and also distribution requirements.

For those who are self-insured, using the restricted framework approved in Rev. Judgment 2005-40 has 2 benefits. First, the parent does not have to share dangers with any various other events. In Ruling 2005-40, the IRS introduced that the risks can be shared within the same economic household as long as the separate subsidiary companies (a minimum of 7 are called for) are formed for non-tax company factors, which the separateness of these subsidiaries additionally has a company reason. Moreover, "danger circulation" is afforded so long as no insured subsidiary has actually given more than 15% or much less than 5% of the premiums held by the hostage. Second, the special stipulations of insurance law enabling hostages to take a present deduction for a quote of future losses, as well as in some conditions sanctuary the revenue earned on the investment of the gets, reduces the capital required to fund future insurance claims from regarding 25% to virtually 50%. In other words, a properly designed slave that meets the demands of 2005-40 can produce an expense financial savings of 25% or more.

While some services can meet the demands of 2005-40 within their own swimming pool of related entities, a lot of privately held business can not. As a result, it is common for captives to purchase "3rd party threat" from other insurance provider, typically investing 4% to 8% per year on the quantity of coverage essential to satisfy the IRS needs.

Among the essential aspects of the bought threat is that there is a reasonable likelihood of loss. As a result of this exposure, some marketers have tried to circumvent the objective of Revenue Judgment 2005-40 by directing their clients into "bogus risk pools." In this rather common circumstance, an attorney or various other marketer will certainly have 10 or even more of their customers' slaves become part of a collective risk-sharing contract. Consisted of in the contract is a created or unformulated arrangement not to make claims on the swimming pool. The customers like this setup because they get all of the tax benefits of having a restricted insurer without the threat connected with insurance. Regrettably for these businesses, the Internal Revenue Service views these kinds of plans as something aside from insurance.

Risk sharing arrangements such as these are taken into consideration without merit and also should be avoided whatsoever costs. They amount to nothing more than a glorified pretax interest-bearing account. If it can be shown that a danger pool is fraudulent, the safety tax obligation condition of the captive can be rejected and the serious tax ramifications explained above will be enforced.

It is popular that the IRS looks at arrangements in between proprietors of captives with terrific uncertainty. The gold criterion in the sector is to buy third party danger from an insurance provider. Anything much less opens the door to potentially devastating consequences.

Abusively High Deductibles; Some promoters market hostages, and afterwards have their slaves participate in a large risk swimming pool with a high insurance deductible. The majority of losses fall within the insurance deductible and are paid by the hostage, not the threat swimming pool.

These promoters may suggest their clients that because the deductible is so high, there is no real chance of third party cases. The trouble with this sort of plan is that the insurance deductible is so high that the restricted fails to meet the requirements set forth by the Internal Revenue Service. The captive looks even more like an advanced pre tax savings account: not an insurer.

A different problem is that the clients might be encouraged that they can subtract all their premiums paid into the threat pool. In the event where the risk swimming pool has couple of or no cases (compared to the losses maintained by the participating captives using a high insurance deductible), the costs designated to the risk pool are just too expensive. If cases do not happen, then premiums must be lowered. In this circumstance, if challenged, the Internal Revenue Service will refuse the deduction made by the captive for unnecessary premiums delivered to the risk swimming pool. The IRS may also deal with the captive as something aside from an insurance provider due to the fact that it did not meet the standards set forth in 2005-40 and also previous related judgments.