query: How much should I be contributing to my 401k given my employer's contribution?

positive: JoeTapayer has good advice here. I would like to add my notes. If they give a 50% match that means you are getting a 50% return on investment(ROI) immediately. I do not know of a way to get a better guaranteed ROI. Next, when investing you need to determine what kind of investor you are. I would suggest you make yourself more literate in investments, as I suggest to anyone, but there are basic things you want to look for. If your primary worry is loss of your prinicipal, go for Conservative investments. This means that you are willing to accept a reduced expected ROI in exchange for lower volatility(risk of loss of principal). This does not mean you have a 100% safe investment as the last market issues have shown, but in general you are better protected. The fidelity investments should give you some information as to volatility or if they deem the investments conservative. Conservative investments are normally made up of trading bonds, which have the lowest ROI in general but are the most secure. You can also invest in blue chip companies, although stock is inherently riskier. It is pointed out in comments that stocks always outperform bonds in the long term, and this has been true over the last 100 years. I am just suggesting ways you can protect yourself against market downturns. When the market is doing very well bonds will not give you the return your friends are seeing. I am just trying to give you a basic idea of what to look for when you pick your investments, nothing can replace a solid investment adviser and taking the time to educate yourself.

positive: You can only contribute up to 5% of your salary? Odd. Usually 401(k) contributions are limited to some dollar amount in the vicinity of $15,000 or so a year. Normal retirement guidelines suggest that putting away 10-15% of your salary is enough that you probably won't need to worry much when you retire. 5% isn't likely to be enough, employer match or no. I'd try to contribute 10-15% of my salary. I think you're reading the rules wrong. I'm almost certain. It's definitely worth checking. If you're not, you should seriously consider supplementing this saving with a Roth IRA or just an after-tax account.  So. If you're with Fidelity and don't know what to do, look for a target date fund with a date near your retirement (e.g. Target Retirement 2040) and put 100% in there until you have a better idea of what going on. All Fidelity funds have pretty miserable expense ratios, even their token S&P500 index fund from another provider, so you might as let them do some leg work and pick your asset allocation for you. Alternatively, look for the Fidelity retirement planner tools on their website to suggest an asset allocation. As a (very rough) rule of thumb, as you're saving for retirement you'll want to have N% of your portfolio in bonds and the rest in stocks, where N is your age in years. Your stocks should probably be split about 70% US and 30% rest-of-world, give or take, and your US stocks should be split about 64% large-cap, 28% mid-cap and 8% small-cap (that's basically how the US stock market is split).

positive: "For your first question, the general guidelines I've seen recommended are as follows: As to your second question, portfolio management is something you should familiarize yourself with.  If you trust it to other people, don't be surprised when they make ""mistakes"".  Remember, they get paid regardless of whether you make money.  Consider how much any degree of risk will affect you.  When starting out, your contributions make up most of the growth of your accounts; now is the time when you can most afford to take higher risk for higher payouts (still limiting your risk as much as possible, of course).  A 10% loss on a portfolio of $50k can be replaced with a good year's contributions.  Once your portfolio has grown to a much larger sum, it will be time to dial back the risk and focus on preserving your capital.   When choosing investments, always treat your porfolio as a whole - including non-retirement assets (other investment accounts, savings, even your house).  Don't put too many eggs from every account into the same basket, or you'll find that 30% of your porfolio is a single investment.  Also consider that some investments have different tax consequences, and you can leverage the properties of each account to offset that."

positive: "First - yes, take the 2.5%. It could be better, but it's better than many get. Second - choosing from ""a bunch"" can be tough. Start by looking at the expenses for each. Read a bit of the description, if you can't tell your spouse what the fund's goal is, don't buy it."

positive: "Contribute as much as you can.  When do you want to retire and how much income do you think you'll need? A $1M portfolio yielding 5% will yield $50,000/year. Do some research about how to build a portfolio... this site is a good start, but check out books on retirement planning and magazines like Money and Kiplinger. If you don't speak ""money"" or are intimidated by investing, look for a fee-based financial advisor whom you are comfortable with."

negative: "Unfortunately, I missed most of segment and I didn't get to understand the Why? To begin with, Cramer is an entertainer and his business is pushing stocks. If you put money into mutual funds (which most 401k plans limit your investments to), then you are not purchasing his product. Also, many 401k plans have limited selections of funds, and many of those funds are not good performers. While his stock-picking track record is much better than mine, his isn't that great.  He does point out that there are a lot of fees (mostly hidden) in 401k accounts. If you read your company's 5500 filing (especialy Schedule A), you can determine just how much your plan administrators are paying themselves. If paying excessive fees is your concern, then you should be rolling over your 401k into your IRA when you quit (or the employer-match vests, which ever is later).  Finally, Cramer thinks that most of his audience will max out their IRA contributions and have only a little bit left for their 401k. I'm most definately ""not most people"" as I'm maxing out both my 401k and IRA contributions."

negative: Obviously, her new employer won't know how much was contributed from   the old job, so this won't work this year. Obviously the new employer would. They will not deposit anything, unless you tell them how much you have deposited already. Somehow tell the new employer how much was contributed by her last   employeer, so they can stop deducting at the right time. I'm not sure   if this is even possible. Why isn't it possible? I've been in a similar situation, the employer had a form to fill on this matter as part of the paperwork for the payroll, right between the direct deposit forms and the 401K contributions form. By the way, another thing to take a look at when switching jobs is the Social Security tax. I wrote about it here.

negative: Let me first start off by saying that you need to be careful with an S-Corp and defined contribution plans.  You might want to consider an LLC or some other entity form, depending on your state and other factors. You should read this entire page on the irs site:  S-Corp Retirement Plan FAQ, but here is a small clip: Contributions to a Self-Employed Plan You can’t make contributions to a self-employed retirement plan from your S corporation   distributions. Although, as an S corporation shareholder, you receive   distributions similar to distributions that a partner receives from a   partnership, your shareholder distributions aren’t earned income for   retirement plan purposes (see IRC section 1402(a)(2)). Therefore, you   also can’t establish a self-employed retirement plan for yourself   solely based on being an S corporation shareholder. There are also some issues and cases about reasonable compensation in S-Corp.  I recommend you read the IRS site's S Corporation Compensation and Medical Insurance Issues page answers as I see them, but I recommend hiring CPA You should be able to do option B.  The limitations are in place for the two different types of contributions:  Elective deferrals and Employer nonelective contributions.  I am going to make a leap and say your talking about a SEP here, therefore you can't setup one were the employee could contribute (post 1997). If your doing self employee 401k, be careful to not make the contributions yourself. If your wife is employed the by company, here calculation is separate and the company could make a separate contribution for her. The limitation for SEP in 2015 are 25% of employee's compensation or $53,000.  Since you will be self employed, you need to calculate your net earnings from self-employment which takes into account the eductible part of your self employment tax and contributions business makes to SEP.  Good read on SEPs at IRS site. and take a look at chapter 2 of Publication 560. I hope that helps and I recommend hiring a CPA in your area to help.

negative: Alright, team!   I found answers to part 1) and part 2) that I've quote below, but still need help with 3).  The facts in the article below seem to point to the ability for the LLC to contribute profit sharing of up to 25% of the wages it paid SE tax on.  What part of the SE tax is that?  I assume the spirit of the law is to only allow the 25% on the taxable portion of the income, but given that I would have crossed the SS portion of SE tax, I am not 100%.  (From http://www.sensefinancial.com/services/solo401k/solo-401k-contribution/) Sole Proprietorship Employee Deferral The owner of a sole proprietorship who is under the age of 50 may make   employee deferral contributions of as much as $17,500 to a Solo 401(k)   plan for 2013 (Those 50 and older can tack on a $5,500 annual catch-up   contribution, bringing their annual deferral contribution to as much   as $23,000). Solo 401k contribution deadline rules dictate that plan   participant must formally elect to make an employee deferral   contribution by Dec. 31. However, the actual contribution can be made   up until the tax-filing deadline.  Pretax and/or after-tax (Roth)   funds can be used to make employee deferral contributions. Profit Sharing Contribution A sole proprietorship may make annual profit-sharing contributions to   a Solo 401(k) plan on behalf of the business owner and spouse.   Internal Revenue Code Section 401(a)(3) states that employer   contributions are limited to 25 percent of the business entity’s   income subject to self-employment tax. Schedule C sole-proprietors   must base their maximum contribution on earned income, an additional   calculation that lowers their maximum contribution to 20 percent of   earned income. IRS Publication 560 contains a step-by-step worksheet   for this calculation. In general, compensation can be defined as your   net earnings from self-employment activity.  This definition takes   into account the following eligible tax deductions: (1) the deduction   for half of self-employment tax and (2) the deduction for   contributions on your behalf to the Solo 401(k) plan.  A business   entity’s Solo 401(k) contributions for profit sharing component must   be made by its tax-filing deadline. Single Member LLC Employee Deferral The owner of a single member LLC who is under the age of 50 may make   employee deferral contributions of as much as $17,500 to a Solo 401(k)   plan for 2013 (Those 50 and older can tack on a $5,500 annual catch-up   contribution, bringing their annual deferral contribution to as much   as $23,000). Solo 401k contribution deadline rules dictate that plan   participant must formally elect to make an employee deferral   contribution by Dec. 31. However, the actual contribution can be made   up until the tax-filing deadline.  Pretax and/or after-tax (Roth)   funds can be used to make employee deferral contributions. Profit Sharing Contribution A single member LLC business may make annual profit-sharing   contributions to a Solo 401(k) plan on behalf of the business owner   and spouse. Internal Revenue Code Section 401(a)(3) states that   employer contributions are limited to 25 percent of the business   entity’s income subject to self-employment tax. Schedule C   sole-proprietors must base their maximum contribution on earned   income, an additional calculation that lowers their maximum   contribution to 20 percent of earned income. IRS Publication 560   contains a step-by-step worksheet for this calculation. In general,   compensation can be defined as your net earnings from self-employment   activity. This definition takes into account the following eligible   tax deductions: (i) the deduction for half of self-employment tax and   (ii) the deduction for contributions on your behalf to the Solo   401(k).  A single member LLC’s Solo 401(k) contributions for profit   sharing component must be made by its tax-filing deadline.

negative: "There are a great number of financial obligations that should be considered more urgent than student loan debt.  I'll go ahead and assume that the ones that can land people in jail aren't an issue (unpaid fines, back taxes, etc.). I cannot stress this enough, so I'll say it again: setting money aside for emergencies is so much more important than paying off student loans.  I've seen people refer to saving as ""paying yourself"" if that helps justify it in your mind.  My wife and I chose to aggressively pay down debt we had stupidly accrued during college, and I got completely blindsided by a layoff during the downturn.  Guess what happened to all those credit cards we'd paid off and almost paid off?  Guess what happened to my 401k? If all we had left were student loans, then I still wouldn't prioritize paying those off.  There are income limits to Roth IRAs, so if you're in a field where you'll eventually make too much to contribute, then you'll lose that opportunity forever.  If you're young and you don't feel like learning too much about investing, plop 100% of your contributions into the low-fee S&P 500 index fund and forget it until you get closer to retirement.  Don't get suckered into their high-fee ""Retirement 20XX"" managed funds. Anyway, sure, if you have at least three months of income replacement in savings, have maximized your employer 401k match, have maximized your Roth IRA contributions for the year, and have no other higher interest debt, then go ahead and knock out those student loans."

negative: "From a purely analytical standpoint, assuming you are investing your Roth IRA contributions in broad market securities (such as the SPDR S&P 500 ETF, which tracks the S&P 500), the broader market has historically had more upward movement than downward, and therefore a dollar invested today will have a greater expected value than a dollar invested tomorrow.  So from this perspective, it is better to ""max out"" your Roth on the first day of the contribution year and immediately invest in broad market (or at least well diversified) securities. That being said, opportunity costs must also be taken into account--every dollar you use to fund your Roth IRA is a dollar that is no longer available to be invested elsewhere (hence, a lost opportunity).  With this in mind, if you are currently eligible for a 401k in which your employer matches some portion of your contributions, it is generally advised that you contribute to the 401k up to the employer-match.  For example, if your employer matches 75% of contributions up to 3.5% of your gross salary, then it is advisable that you first contribute this 3.5% to your 401k before even considering contributing to a Roth IRA.  The reasoning behind this is two-fold: first, the employer-match can be considered as a guaranteed Return on Investment--so for example, for an employer that matches 75%, for every dollar you contribute you already have earned a 75% return up to the employer's limit.  Secondly, 401k contributions have tax implications: not only is the money contributed to the 401k pre-tax (i.e., contributions are not taxed), it also reduces your taxable income, so the marginal tax benefit of these contributions must also be taken into account.  Keep in mind that in the usual circumstances, 401k disbursements are taxable. Finally, many financial advisors will also suggest establishing an ""emergency fund"", which is money that you will not use unless you suffer an emergency that has an impact on your normal income--loss of job, medical emergency, etc.  These funds are often kept in highly liquid accounts (savings accounts, money-market funds, etc.) so they can be accessed immediately when you run into one of ""life's little surprises"".  Generally, it is advised that an emergency fund between $500-$1000 is established ASAP, and over time the emergency fund should be increased until it has reached a value equivalent to the sum of 8 months' worth of expenses.  If funding an IRA is preventing you from working towards such an emergency fund, then you may want to consider waiting on maxing out the IRA before you have that EF established. Of course, it goes without saying that credit card balances with APRs other than 0.00% (or similar) should be paid off before an IRA is funded, since while you can only hope to match the market at best (between 10-15% a year) in your IRA investments, paying down credit card balances is an instant ""return"" of whatever the APR is, which usually tends to be between a 15-30% APR. In a nutshell, assuming you are maxing out your 401k (if applicable), have an emergency fund established, are not carrying any high-APR credit card balances, and are able to do so, historical price movements in the markets suggest that funding your Roth IRA upfront and investing these funds immediately in a broadly diversified portfolio will yield a higher expected return than funding the account periodically throughout the year (using dollar cost averaging or similar strategies).  If this is not the case, take some time to consider the opportunity costs you are incurring from not fully contributing to your 401k, carrying high credit card balances, or not having a sufficient emergency fund established. This is not financial advice specific to any individual and your mileage may vary.  Consider consulting a Certified Financial Planner, Certified Public Accountant, etc. before making any major financial decisions."

negative: For the rollover, you should probably talk to the recipient manager.  This would be your broker or whomever (your new employer if rolling into another 401k).  They should be able to update you on progress and let you know if you need to do anything.   In a comment, you say  I could be putting in money but instead im lossing. There is no requirement that an IRA have 401k money in it.  Just put the money in without the existing money.  Eventually the rollover will complete and add that money to whatever you contribute to the IRA.  The rollover should not affect your future contributions in any way.

negative: "This is an excellent topic as it impacts so many in so many different ways. Here are some thoughts on how the accounts are used which is almost as important as the as calculating the income or tax. The Roth is the best bang for the buck, once you have taken full advantage of employer matched 401K.  Yes, you pay taxes upfront.  All income earned isn't taxed (under current tax rules).  This money can be passed on to family and can continue forever.  Contributions can be funded past age 70.5.  Once account is active for over 5 years, contributions can be withdrawn and used (ie: house down payment, college, medical bills), without any penalties.  All income earned must be left in the account to avoid penalties.  For younger workers, without an employer match this is idea given the income tax savings over the longer term and they are most likely in the lowest tax bracket. The 401k is great for retirement, which is made better if employer matches contributions.  This is like getting paid for retirement saving.  These funds are ""locked"" up until age 59.5, with exceptions.  All contributed funds and all earnings are ""untaxed"" until withdrawn. The idea here is that at the time contributions are added, you are at a higher tax rate then when you expect to withdrawn funds. Trade Accounts, investments, as stated before are the used of taxed dollars.  The biggest advantage of these are the liquidity."

negative: There are several things being mixed up in the questions being asked. The expense ratio charged by the mutual fund is built into the NAV per share of the fund, and you do not see the charge explicitly  mentioned as a deduction  on your 401k statement (or in the statement received from the mutual fund in a non-401k situation). The expense ratio is listed in the fund's prospectus, and should also have been made available to you in the literature about the new 401k plan that your employer is setting up. Mutual fund fees (for things like having a small balance, or for that matter, sales charges if any of the funds in the 401k are load funds, God forbid) are different. Some load mutual funds waive  the sales charge load for 401k participants, while some may not. Actually, it all depends on how hard the employer negotiates with the 401k administration company who handles all the paperwork and the mutual fund company with which the 401k administration company negotiates.  (In the 1980s, Fidelity Magellan (3% sales load) was a hot fund, but my employer managed to get it as an option in our plan with no sales load: it helped that my employer was large and could twist arms more easily than a mom-and-pop outfit or Solo 401k plan could). A long long time ago in a galaxy far far away, my first ever IRA contribution of $2000 into a  no-load mutual fund resulted in a $25 annual maintenance fee, but the law allowed the payment of this fee separately from the $2000 if the IRA owner wished to do so. (If not, the $25 would reduce the IRA balance (and no, this did  not count as a premature distribution from the IRA). Plan expenses are what the 401k administration company charges the employer for running the plan (and these expenses are not necessarily peanuts; a 401k plan is not something that needs just a spreadsheet -- there is lots of other paperwork that the employee never gets to see). In some cases, the employer pays the entire expense as a cost of doing business; in other cases, part is paid by the employer and the rest is passed on to the employees.  As far as I know, there is no mechanism for the employee to pay these expenses outside the 401k plan (that is, these expenses are (visibly) deducted from the 401k plan balance). Finally, with regard to the question asked: how are plan fees divided among the investment options? I don't believe that anyone other than the 401k plan administrator or the employer can answer this. Even if the employer simply adopts one of the pre-packaged plans offered by a big 401k administrator (many brokerages and mutual fund companies offer these), the exact numbers depend on which pre-packaged plan has been chosen. (I do think the answers the OP has received are rubbish).

negative: "So many complicated answers for a straight forward question. First to this point ""I am failing to see why would a person get an IRA, instead of just putting the same amount of money into a mutual fund..."" An IRA can be invested in a mutual fund.  The IRA benefit over standard mutual fund is pre-tax contribution lowering your current tax liability. The advantage of an IRA over a 401k is control.  Your employer controls where the 401k is invested, you control where your IRA is invested.  Often employers have a very small number of options, because this keeps their costs with the brokerage low. 401k is AMAZING if you have employer matched contributions.  Use them to the maximum your employer will match.  After that OWN your IRA.  Control is key when it comes to your money. On IRA's. Buy ROTH first.  Contribute the calendar maximum.  Then get a traditional.  The benefit of ROTH is that you already paid taxes on the contribution so your withdrawal is not taxed AND they do not tax the interest earned like they do on a standard mutual fund."

negative: Unless you have an actual hardship (bankruptcy or other emergency), you will be better off leaving that money alone. This excellent answer, gives more than enough reasons why a withdrawal or loan is not recommended.  I would love some advice because I need to know if I should contribute more into my 401k or less. If your priority to purchase is high enough, it may be worth considering stopping 401k contributions for a short time to help pile up a down payment.  I also encourage you to consider that if you cannot pool the money from non-retirement sources, then you cannot afford that much house at this time. This might mean looking for cheaper houses or delaying purchase for a number of years.

negative: The HSA money is yours to keep. You can't add new money into the account and get a tax deduction for the new money, but you can spend the old money on medical expenses. First log into the website for the HSA and see if you have money left. This can be important because if there is still money left they might be charging you a monthly fee. You should have gotten a letter from the old company or the administrator when you left the High deductible insurance plan. This would have told you your options regarding the spending or transferring of old funds. HSA related numbers would have appeared on your W2, and you should have a 1099-SA from the administrator. It is likely that there is a copy of the 1099 on the administrators website. The numbers you enter on the tax forms depends on how much you contributed from your paycheck, how much your company contributed, and how much you sent (if any) from other sources besides payroll deduction. You will also have to know how much money was withdrawn from the HSA and how much was used for medical purposes. The last month rule is for those people who start in the middle of the year. If you start partway through the year you are allowed to make the maximum contribution if you still have it at the end of the year, and you expect to keep it.  The Last Month Rule The Last Month Rule states that if you are covered by an HSA eligible   health plan on the first day of the last month of a given year, you   are considered an eligible individual for the entire year. In turn,   you can then contribute to the HSA for that full year. If you are covered by an HDHP on Dec 1st of a given year, you may contribute the maximum for that year. For example, you could begin coverage and open up my HSA in November   of a given year. Come December 1st, you are covered and per the Last   Month Rule, considered an eligible employee for that full year. That   allows you to contribute up to that year’s contribution limit, even   waiting a few months to make a prior year contribution if you like.   Back up the truck and load up the HSA! However, there is a catch.  The Testing Period The Testing Period states if you use the Last Month Rule, you must   remain an eligible individual (covered by HDHP) for the following 12   months. If you fail to remain an eligible individual (change insurance   plans, lose insurance plan, receive other health coverage) any “extra”   contributions you made as a result of the Last Month Rule will be   taxed and penalized. If you contribute per the Last Month Rule and end your HDHP insurance within 1 year, you will have to pay tax on any excess   contributions you were allowed to make and pay a 10% penalty. In this case, “excess” contributions are determined by the   contribution limit / 12 months, compared to your time eligible.

negative: My perspective is from the US. Many employers offer 401(k)s and you can always contribute to an IRA for either tax deferred or tax free investment growth. If you're company offers a 401(k) match you should always contribute the maximum amount they max or you're leaving money on the table.    Companies can't always support pensions and it isn't the best idea to rely on one entirely for retirement unless your pension is from the federal government.   Even states such as Illinois are going through extreme financial difficulties due to pension funding issues. It's only going to get worse and if you think pension benefit accrual isn't going to be cut eventually you'll have another thing coming. I'd be worried if I was a state employee in the middle of my career with no retirement savings outside of my pension.   Ranting: Employees pushed hard for some pretty absurd commitments and public officials let the public down by giving in. It seems a little crazy to me that someone can work for the state until they're in their 50's and then earn 70% of their 6 figure salary for the rest of their life. Something needs to be done but I'd be surprised if anyone has the political will to make tough choices now before thee options get much much worse and these states are forced to make a decision.

negative: "Publication 590a covers this in a fairly specific manner. Page 11, section ""Are You Covered by an Employer Plan?"", specifies: The Form W-2 you receive from your employer has a box   used to indicate whether you were covered for the year.   The “Retirement Plan” box should be checked if you were   covered. So, by default, if that's checked, you're covered.  590 does go into more detail, though. Assuming you're covered under a Defined Contribution plan (a 401k for example): Defined contribution plan. Generally, you are covered   by a defined contribution plan for a tax year if amounts are   contributed or allocated to your account for the plan year   that ends with or within that tax year.  Tax Year: Tax year. Your tax year is the annual accounting period   you use to keep records and report income and expenses   on your income tax return. For almost all people, the tax   year is the calendar year. Further, they cover issues related to an employee leaving Dec. 31 very specifically: A special rule applies to certain plans in which it is not   possible to determine if an amount will be contributed to   your account for a given plan year. If, for a plan year, no   amounts have been allocated to your account that are attributable   to employer contributions, employee contributions,   or forfeitures, by the last day of the plan year, and   contributions are discretionary for the plan year, you are   not covered for the tax year in which the plan year ends. If,   after the plan year ends, the employer makes a contribution   for that plan year, you are covered for the tax year in   which the contribution is made. Example: Example. Mickey was covered by a profit-sharing plan   and left the company on December 31, 2014. The plan   year runs from July 1 to June 30. Under the terms of the   plan, employer contributions do not have to be made, but   if they are made, they are contributed to the plan before   the due date for filing the company's tax return. Such contributions   are allocated as of the last day of the plan year,   and allocations are made to the accounts of individuals   who have any service during the plan year. As of June 30,   2015, no contributions were made that were allocated to   the June 30, 2015, plan year, and no forfeitures had been   allocated within the plan year. In addition, as of that date,   the company was not obligated to make a contribution for   such plan year and it was impossible to determine   whether or not a contribution would be made for the plan   year. On December 31, 2015, the company decided to   contribute to the plan for the plan year ending June 30,   2015. That contribution was made on February 15, 2016.   Mickey is an active participant in the plan for his 2016 tax   year but not for his 2015 tax year. Mickey is in a similar (but different) circumstance, and it's clear from the IRS's treatment of his circumstance that you would be in the same boat (just a year less off) - but be aware given Mickey's situation that it's theoretically possible for them to make another contribution next year, as Mickey had, depending on when their plan year/etc. ends. So - from the IRS's point of view, everything you said the company did is correct.  They paid you in January, contributed to your 401k as a result of that paycheck, and thus you were officially considered covered for 2015."

negative: "First off, I highly recommend the book Get a Financial Life.  The basics of personal finance and money management are pretty straightforward, and this book does a great job with it.  It is very light reading, and it really geared for the young person starting their career.  It isn't the most current book (pre real-estate boom), but the recommendations in the book are still sound.  (update 8/28/2012: New edition of the book came out.) Now, with that out of the way, there's really two kinds of ""investing"" to think about: For most individuals, it is best to take care of #1 first.  Most people shouldn't even think about #2 until they have fully funded their retirement accounts, established an emergency fund, and gotten their debt under control. There are lots of financial incentives for retirement investing, both from your employer, and the government.  All the more reason to take care of #1 before #2! Your employer probably offers some kind of 401k (or equivalent, like a 403b) with a company-provided match.  This is a potential 100% return on your investment after the vesting period.  No investment you make on your own will ever match that.  Additionally, there are tax advantages to contributing to the 401k.  (The money you contribute doesn't count as taxable income.) The best way to start investing is to learn about your employer's retirement plan, and contribute enough to fully utilize the employer matching. Beyond this, there are also Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) you can open to contribute money to on your own.  You should open one of these and start contributing, but only after you have fully utilized the employer matching with the 401k.  The IRA won't give you that 100% ROI that the 401k will. Keep in mind that retirement investments are pretty much ""walled off"" from your day-to-day financial life.  Money that goes into a retirement account generally can't be touched until retirement age, unless you want to pay lots of taxes and penalties.  You generally don't want to put the money for your house down payment into a retirement account. One other thing to note:  Your 401K and your IRA is an account that you put money into.  Just because the money is sitting in the account doesn't necessarily mean it is invested.  You put the money into this account, and then you use this money for investments.  How you invest the retirement money is a topic unto itself.  Here is a good starting point.  If you want to ask questions about retirement portfolios, it is probably worth posting a new question."

negative: Sure it is quite easy depending on income.  If one receives a bonus that is high in relationship to their income, it is very easy to max out a 401K prior to when one intended.  The later in the year such a bonus occurs the more likely that one will max out prematurely.   If one only has a single employer in the year, the custodial company will not accept amounts above the max, so one need not worry about that case.  If there is more than one employer, a refund is typically issued with the appropriate tax withheld.   Assume that a person makes about 60K per year.  They intend to put 12k into their 401K, thus have their contribution set to 20%.  By the beginning of September, they have 8K into their retirement, but they also receive a bonus of 50K.  Their 401K contribution for that bonus will be 10K, and thus they have maxed out their individual contribution for the year. So they will not be able to contribute for the rest of the year, including the first paycheck in September.  They will miss out on any match that the company may supply.  While that sucks, it should be relieved by the bless of receiving such a large bonus.

negative: Yes, you are generally allowed to make contributions yourself to your HSA, even if your employer also made contributions. Let me explain further. The contribution limit for tax year 2015 is $3350 for individual coverage.  (It is higher for family coverage, or for account holders age 55+.)  The limit is for everything contributed to the HSA, whether it is an employer contribution or an account holder contribution.  (In other words, if your limit is $3350, and your employer contributed $3000, you can only contribute $350.) As far as the IRS is concerned, anything that your employer sends in is considered an employer contribution.  This might be money from the company as part of a benefit, or it might be money deducted from your salary as part of a voluntary contribution on your part.  Either way, if the employer sends it in, it is an employer contribution.  None of this employer contribution shows up on your W-2 as taxable income, so you don't get to deduct it on your tax return.  It has already been taken off of your income. Money that you send in yourself with your after-tax dollars is your account holder contribution.  This is money that you can deduct on your tax return, so that you aren't paying tax on this money. So here is what you need to do: Determine your total HSA contribution limit for tax year 2015. Find out how much your employer has already contributed for 2015.  The difference is how much you can still contribute for 2015. Contact your HSA provider and find out how to make a 2015 contribution.  Don't just send money in, because there is probably a form they want you to fill out to make a prior year contribution. Get all this done by April 15, the deadline for making a prior year contribution.  Actually, get it done before April 15, because often there will be some sort of delay of a day or two that will prevent you from doing this on the last day.

negative: My observations is that this seems like hardly enough to kill   inflation. Is he right? Or are there better ways to invest? The tax deferral part of the equation isn't what dominates regarding whether your 401k beats 30 years of inflation; it is the return on investment.  If your 401k account tanks due to a prolonged market crash just as you retire, then you might have been better off stashing the money in the bank.  Remember, 401k money at now + 30 years is not a guaranteed return (though many speak as though it were).  There is also the question as to whether fees will eat up some of your return and whether the funds your 401k invests in are good ones. I'm uneasy with the autopilot nature of the typical 401k non-strategy; it's too much the standard thing to do in the U.S., it's too unconscious, and strikes me as Ponzi-like.  It has been a winning strategy for some already, sure, and maybe it will work for the next 30-100 years or more.  I just don't know.  There are also changes in policy or other unknowns that 30 years will bring, so it takes faith I don't have to lock away a large chunk of my savings in something I can't touch without hassle and penalty until then. For that reason, I have contributed very little to my 403b previously, contribute nothing now (though employer does, automatically.  I have no match.) and have built up a sizable cash savings, some of which may be used to start a business or buy a house with a small or no mortgage (thereby guaranteeing at least not paying mortgage interest).  I am open to changing my mind about all this, but am glad I've been able to at least save a chunk to give me some options that I can exercise in the next 5-10 years if I want, instead of having to wait 25 or more.

negative: "According to the FAFSA info here, they will count your nonretirement assets when figuring the EFC. The old Motley Fool forum question I mentioned in my comment suggests asking the school for a ""special circumstances adjustment to your FAFSA"".  I don't know much about it, but googling finds many pages about it at different colleges.  This would seem to be something you need to do individually with whatever school(s) your son winds up considering.  Also, it is up to the school whether to have mercy on you and accept your request. Other than that, you should establish whatever retirement accounts you can and immediately begin contributing as much as possible.  Given that the decision is likely to be complicated by your foreign income, you should seek professional advice from an accountant versed in such matters."

negative: I would just buy a low-cost diversified equity ETF. VTI is pretty solid. Also, JW are you working or in school? If you are working you should consider opening an IRA or Roth IRA. Also if your employer has a 401k or other retirement plan you can contribute to I would advise doing so.

negative: Gross pay is the total your employer is paying you. Net pay is the amount of money you actually received (should match your check or direct deposit), which is gross pay minus deductions (healthcare, 401k contributions, commuter tax-free programs, etc), taxes (as explained already), 401k loan repayments, garnishments (child support, IRS messes, etc).

negative: >What makes you think anything would change? If they allowed Match money to be distributed tax free, they are missing out on a future tax revenue opportunity.  I agree that it's highly unlikely that matching contributions would be made entirely tax-free. If anything, I would expect employer contributions to be treated the same way that after-tax (non-Roth) 401(k) contributions are treated today to the extent that they exceed the new contribution limits. It's also possible that only individual contribution limits will be reduced and employer contribution limits will remain much higher - I haven't seen any reporting on the latter.  >I think the more likely way they would stick it to us is to sunset the Roth 401(k) all together and make plans go back to the old school pre-tax and after-tax only, where even the earnings on after-tax are taxed at distribution.  I'm optimistic that Roth 401(k)s are here to stay. Trump's priorities seem to be centered around short-term budget characteristics with far less concern for the long-term (as is characteristic of populist administrations in general), and eliminating Roth 401(k)s would be unpopular and have a negligible impact on tax revenue in the short term.

negative: Check out personal finance. But, my guess is no. Given you are married and you were prepared to contribute $x out of the entire family pot, why don't they just contribute $x from their portion of the entire family pot? Net effect should be similar or identical. (I'm not an accountant nor married, so enjoy the grain of salt).

negative: The biggest challenge as a young person maxing out a 401k in my opinion is the challenge of saving for a house, and (if necessary) paying off student loans. You have to consider - are you OK renting for the next 3, 5, 10 years? Or do you eventually want to buy a place? how much will that cost vs your current expenses?  That being said, I didn't max out but had over 8-10% of 401k contribution in the same situation you're in right now and I don't regret it.  Rereading your question, I see you are considering investing in a Roth IRA. Especially at your current age, assuming your wages will go UP, investing to the company match with the 401K and then maxing out a Roth IRA would be my recommendation. THEN continue maxing out the 401k (if you wish).  P.S. I highly recommend doing two things if you go down this path:

negative: My advice would be to invest in the 401k with the same type of funds you'd purchase when you rollover to your IRA. They are both retirement accounts. If the stock market tanks, your 401k balance will be low but you'll also be purchasing stocks at a much cheaper price when you establish your roth. You should create an asset allocation based on your age, not on the type of retirement account you have. One question to consider: When you do become a student, you'll likely be a in lower tax bracket. Can you contribute pre-tax dollars and then rollover to a ROTH in the year that you're a student?

negative: The account doesn't have to be associated with a specific health plan. There are some accounts that work that way. In fact, mine does. But I didn't go to a bank and open it up, it came as a package deal with my employer's health plan. Furthermore I don't contribute to it, the company does. If I wish to contribute my own funds, I have a separate Flexible Spending Account (FSA). This is not tied to my health plan. I can make qualified purchases at Wal Mart, Target, or wherever I choose. Then I can submit the receipts for reimbursement.  In your case it sounds like your HSA works more like my FSA. The relevant question here is 'How do I (you) withdraw funds from the HSA?' There are a few different possibilities. Some accounts have a debit card, some give you checks, some have a reimbursement process similar to my FSA. (Some have more than one option available.) In your case you should contact Bank of America to determine how to withdraw funds from your account.

negative: Does the 457(b) plan allow for the rollover of other retirement funds into it? And do you have very specific reasons for wanting to roll over your SEP-IRA into the 457(b) plan instead of into some other IRA plan with a different custodian? For example, if you already have a Traditional IRA, is there any reason why your SEP-IRA should not be rolled over into the Traditional IRA? With regard to the question about separate accounts, once upon a time, rolling over money from an employment retirement plan (e.g. 401k) into a Traditional IRA required establishing a separate account called a Rollover Traditional IRA so that the rolled-over money (and the earnings thereon) were not commingled with standard traditional IRA money resulting from personal contributions). This was so that the account owner had the option of rolling over the separately kept money into a new employer's retirement plan (if such a rollover was permitted by the new 401k plan). If one did not want to ever roll over money into a new employer plan, one had to write a letter to the custodian telling them that commingling was OK; you never wanted to put that money into another 401k plan. The law changed some time later and the concept of Rollover IRAs holding non-commingled funds has disappeared.  With that as prologue, my answer to your question is that perhaps the law did not change with respect to 457(b) plans, and so the money that you want to rollover into the 457(b) plan needs to be kept separate and not commingled with your contributions via payroll deduction to the 457(b) plan (in case you want to ever roll over the SEP-IRA money into another SEP-IRA). Hence, separate accounts are needed: one to hold your SEP-IRA money and one to hold your contributions via payroll deductions.

negative: Someone messed up here. My tax accountant says she is supposed to enter the values as they are on the W2 and CompanyB said they will not issue a new W2 because they were not involved in the refund of the money. Correct. We decided that we will enter a value different from 12b-d, subtract the money that was refunded to me because it's already on the 1099.  Incorrect. Is there an alternative to avoid paying taxes twice on the 401k overages? If not, is there a better way to do this to minimize the risk of an audit? You should enter the amounts in W2 as they are. Otherwise things won't tie at the IRS and they will come back asking questions. The amount in box 12-D was deducted from your wages pre-tax, so you didn't pay tax on it. The distribution is taxable, and if it was made before the tax day next year - only taxable once. So if you withdrew the same year of the contribution, as it sounds like you did, you will only pay tax on it once because the amounts were not included in your salary. If the 1099-R is marked with the correct code, the IRS will be able to match the excess contribution (box 12-D) and the removal of the excess contribution (1099-R with the code) and it will all tie, no-one will audit you. The accountant is probably clueless as to how her software works. By default, the accounting software will add the excess contribution on W2 box 12-D back into wages, and it will be added to taxable income on your tax return. However, when you type in the 1099 with the proper code, this should be reversed by the software, and if it is not - should be manually overridden. This should be done at the adjustment entry, not the W2 entry screen, since a copy of the W2 will be transmitted with your tax return and should match the actual W2 transmitted by your employer. If she doesn't know what she's doing, find someone who does.

negative: "Is it really all that much for me to ask that exchanges not be complicit in my 401k being front-run? I really don't get how you can argue it's a good thing. I guess I should instead be mad at the my 401k management firm for not dragging their own private fiber networks and allowing my 401k to get shaved by ""smarter"" traders that do. You're ridiculous."

negative: Back in the late 80's I had a co-worked do exactly this. In those days you could only do things quarterly: change the percentage, change the investment mix, make a withdrawal.. There were no Roth 401K accounts, but contributions could be pre-tax or post-tax. Long term employees were matched 100% up to 8%, newer employees were only matched 50% up to 8% (resulting in 4% match). Every quarter this employee put in 8%, and then pulled out the previous quarters contribution. The company match continued to grow.  Was it smart? He still ended up with 8% going into the 401K. In those pre-Enron days the law allowed companies to limit the company match to 100% company stock which meant that employees retirement was at risk. Of course by the early 2000's the stock that was purchased for $6 a share was worth $80 a share... Now what about the IRS: Since I make designated Roth contributions from after-tax income, can I make tax-free withdrawals from my designated Roth account at any   time? No, the same restrictions on withdrawals that apply to pre-tax   elective contributions also apply to designated Roth contributions. If   your plan permits distributions from accounts because of hardship, you   may choose to receive a hardship distribution from your designated   Roth account. The hardship distribution will consist of a pro-rata   share of earnings and basis and the earnings portion will be included   in gross income unless you have had the designated Roth account for 5   years and are either disabled or over age 59 ½. Regarding getting just contributions: What happens if I take a distribution from my designated Roth account before the end of the 5-taxable-year period? If you take a distribution from your designated Roth account before   the end of the 5-taxable-year period, it is a nonqualified   distribution. You must include the earnings portion of the   nonqualified distribution in gross income. However, the basis (or   contributions) portion of the nonqualified distribution is not   included in gross income. The basis portion of the distribution is   determined by multiplying the amount of the nonqualified distribution   by the ratio of designated Roth contributions to the total designated   Roth account balance. For example, if a nonqualified distribution of   $5,000 is made from your designated Roth account when the account   consists of $9,400 of designated Roth contributions and $600 of   earnings, the distribution consists of $4,700 of designated Roth   contributions (that are not includible in your gross income) and $300   of earnings (that are includible in your gross income). See Q&As regarding Rollovers of Designated Roth Contributions, for   additional rules for rolling over both qualified and nonqualified   distributions from designated Roth accounts.

negative: I have managed two IRA accounts; one I inherited from my wife's 401K and my own's 457B.  I managed actively my wife's 401 at Tradestation which doesn't restrict on Options except level 5 as naked puts and calls. I moved half of my 457B funds to TDAmeritrade, the only broker authorized by my employer, to open a Self Directed account.  However, my 457 plan disallows me from using a Cash-secured Puts, only Covered Calls.  For those who does not know investing, I resent the contention that participants to these IRAs should not be messing around with their IRA funds.  For years, I left my 401k/457B funds with my current fund custodian, Great West Financial.  I checked it's current values once or twice a year. These last years, the market dived in the last 2 quarters of 2015 and another dive early January and February of 2016.  I lost a total of $40K leaving my portfolio with my current custodian choosing all 30 products they offer, 90% of them are ETFs and the rest are bonds. If you don't know investing, better leave it with the pros - right?  But no one can predict the future of the market.  Even the pros are at the mercy of the market. So, I you know how to invest and choose your stocks, I don't think your plan administrator has to limit you on how you manage your funds. For example, if you are not allowed to place a Cash-Secured Puts and you just Buy the stocks or EFT at market or even limit order, you buy the securities at their market value. If you sell a Cash-secured puts against the stocks/ETF you are interested in buying, you will receive a credit in fraction of a dollar in a specific time frame.  In average, your cost to owning a stock/ETF is lesser if you buy it at market or even a limit order.  Most of the participants of the IRA funds rely too much on their portfolio manager because they don't know how to manage. If you try to educate yourself at a minimum, you will have a good understanding of how your IRA funds are tied up to the market.  If you know how to trade in bear market compared to bull market, then you are good at managing your investments.  When I started contributing to my employer's deferred comp account (457B) as a public employee, I have no idea of how my portfolio works.  Year after year as I looked at my investment, I was happy because it continued to grow.  Without scrutinizing how much it grew yearly, and my regular payroll contribution, I am happy even it only grew 2% per year.  And at this age that I am ready to retire at 60, I started taking investment classes and attended pre-retirement seminars.  Then I knew that it was not totally a good decision to leave your retirement funds in the hands of the portfolio manager since they don't really care if it tanked out on some years as long at overall it grew to a meager 1%-4% because they managers are pretty conservative on picking the equities they invest.  You can generalize that maybe 90% of IRA investors don't know about investing and have poor decision making actions which securities/ETF to buy and hold. For those who would like to remain as one, that is fine.  But for those who spent time and money to study and know how to invest, I don't think the plan manager can limit the participants ability to manage their own portfolio especially if the funds have no matching from the employer like mine. All I can say to all who have IRA or any retirement accounts, educate yourself early because if you leave it all to your portfolio managers, you lost a lot.  Don't believe much in what those commercial fund managers also show in their presentation just to move your funds for them to manage.  Be proactive.  If you start learning how to invest now when you are young, JUST DO IT!

negative: "401k plans are required to not discriminate against the non-HCE participants, and one way they achieve this is by limiting the percentage of wages that HCEs can contribute to the plan to the average annual percentage contribution by the non-HCE participants or 3% whichever is higher.  If most non-HCE employees contribute only 3% (usually to capture the employer match but no more),  then the HCEs are stuck with 3%. However, be aware that in companies that award year-end bonuses to all employees, many non-HCEs contribute part of their bonuses to their 401k plans, and so the average annual percentage can rise above 3% at the end of year. Some payroll offices have been known to ask all those who have not already maxed out their 401k contribution  for the year (yes, it is possible to do this even while contributing only 3% if you are not just a HCE but a VHCE) whether they want to contribute the usual 3%, or a higher percentage, or to contribute the maximum possible under the nondiscrimination rules. So, you might be able to contribute more than 3% if the non-HCEs put in more money at the end of the year. With regard to NQSPs, you pretty much have their properties pegged correctly. That money is considered to be deferred compensation and so you pay taxes on it only when you receive it upon leaving employment. The company also gets to deduct it as a business expense when the money is paid out, and as you said, it is not money that is segregated as a 401k plan is. On the other hand, you have earned the money already: it is just that the company is ""holding"" it for you. Is it paying you interest on the money (accumulating in the NQSP, not paid out in cash or taxable income to you)?  Would it be better to just take the money right now, pay taxes on it, and invest it yourself? Some deferred compensation plans work as follows. The deferred compensation is given to you as a loan in the year it is  earned, and you pay only interest on the principal each year. Since  the money is a loan, there is no tax of any kind due on the money when you receive it. Now you can invest the proceeds of this loan and hopefully earn enough to cover the interest  payments due. (The interest you pay is deductible on Schedule A as an Investment Interest Expense).  When employment ceases,  you repay the loan to the company as a lump sum or in five or ten annual installments, whatever was agreed to, while the company pays you your deferred compensation less taxes withheld. The net effect is that you pay the company the  taxes due on the money, and the company sends this on to the various tax authorities as money withheld from wages paid.  The advantage is that you do not need to worry  about what happens to your money if the company fails; you have received it up front.  Yes, you have to pay the loan principal to the company but the company also owes you exactly that much money as unpaid wages. In the best of all worlds, things will proceed smoothly, but if not, it is better to be in this Mexican standoff rather than standing in line in bankruptcy court and hoping to get pennies on the dollar for your work."


query: What to do with an old building to get money

positive: There are a few ways to get money from property, but I'm not sure any would work for you: 1) Firstly you could sell it. Selling the building might require enough repairs that the building is habitable; if the repair costs are too high, you might not be able to recover costs from selling. For a particularly old and unkempt building, this is more likely to be the case. In extreme scenarios, you may earn more net profit by demolishing a decrepit building, and simply selling the land. Make sure you aren't setting your price too high if you are desperate to sell; dropping your price might make the headache of upkeep go away, and might be better for you financially in the long run. 2) You could rent it - but if it is so uninhabitable you can't sell it, then this is unlikely without repairs (and it seems you don't want to do this anyway). 3) If your building is in an area where the zoning laws are not strict, you may be able to apply for a permit to have it zoned for commercial use - and either run a business out of it, or rent it to someone else to do so. Again, this would be dependent on repairs if the building is uninhabitable, and also would require the building to well-situated for a business. 4) You could take out a mortgage on the building. Of course, this has two big caveats: (a) the bank would need to assess the building for value [and it seems not to be worth much in your case]; and (b) this provides only temporary cash, which you would need to pay back to the bank over time. In some cases, if you had a solid plan, you might be able to take a mortgage out against the value of the land, and use the cash from the mortgage to do some repairs, so that it would be in good shape for selling.

negative: "Presumably the existing house has some value. If you demolish the existing house, you are destroying that value. If the value of the new house is significantly more than the value of the old house, like if you're talking about replacing a small, run-down old house worth $50,000 with a big new mansion worth $10,000,000, then the value of the old house that is destroyed might just get lost in the rounding errors for all practical purposes. But otherwise, I don't see how you would do this without bringing cash to the table basically equal to what you still owe on the old house. Presumably the new house is worth more than the old, so the value of the property when you're done will be more than it was before. But will the value of the property be more than the old mortgage plus the new mortgage? Unless the old mortgage was almost paid off, or you bring a bunch of cash, the answer is almost certainly ""no"". Note that from the lienholder's point of view, you are not ""temporarily"" reducing the value of the property. You are permanently reducing it. The bank that makes the new loan will have a lien on the new house. I don't know what the law says about this, but you would have to either, (a) deliberately destroy property that someone else has a lien on while giving them no compensation, or (b) give two banks a lien on the same property. I wouldn't think either option would be legal.  Normally when people tear down a building to put up a new building, it's because the value of the old building is so low as to be negligible compared to the value of the new building. Either the old building is run-down and getting it into decent shape would cost more than tearing it down and putting up a new building, or at least there is some benefit -- real or perceived -- to the new building that makes this worth it."

negative: Gonna have to think about this one yourself. How much is the old house worth if you sell it? How much can you rent it out for? If you can sell it for a decent amount, you might be able to pay off the current house completely, save yourself nearly 200k in interest, and maybe end up with a bit more cash. If you can rent it for a high amount, it might be worth doing that and you could possibly use that and get more money than what the interest is.   Just gotta weigh up your options, find out what you can get for the house if you rent or sell.

negative: Thanks for the feedback obelus,   The cost is $20,000 to 50,000 sqft.   Ya I am just looking for a rough idea of what a similar newer building is costing I figured what we are paying is really high as the building is extremely old and designated as a heritage site so we can't just knock it down. Beautiful building just not very efficient.   The newer building is the route I think we are gonna end up going not sure what we can do with the current building as not too many options for resale. We can't adjust the lease rates to compensate for the cost as the tenants are all seniors and it is an integrated care home. A change to apartments would prove difficult as there are no kitchens in 90% of the suites.  We are currently paying approximately $0.40 psf a month to heat (All electric) and the estimate for the new building is $0.1425 psf (Geothermal) so it is a pretty huge impact in comparison if it is possible but I haven't heard of a real building actually costing that little before.   Thanks for the suggestion for the IR I think I am gonna get some one in after the holidays to do a inspection to see if there is any short term fixes we can do with our system.

negative: Universal Steel of America provides steel building kits, which help to restore your old building from wreckage condition. After few years your building needs renovation. However steel building kits can be a great choice for upgrading your sweet home. If not, hire one experienced local contractor from Universal Steel of America to build your metal building quickly and affordably.

negative: Some lenders will make loans for vacant land, others will not. You have to discuss with local bank what are your plan for the land: live in the old mobile home; install a new mobile home; build a new house; Sell it to a developer; use it for camping... Is the property part of a development with other mobile homes? If so there may be complications regarding the use and rights of the property. Some local jurisdictions also want to eliminate mobile homes, so they may put limitations on the housing options.

negative: This. I'd ask around a bit to find out if more people miss the bowling alley, see if there is interest for a 'reboot'. Also, at the very least you should talk to the current owners about how it is going, what's happening etc. to put some feelers out without expressing direct interest. Maybe they have racked up a hefty debt, who knows. Scope it out a bit.  Be wary of looking at it from a sentimental point of view. You had a great time there, you're not guaranteed to have that again, even with you running it. Running it and visiting it are way different.  You will probably have to do a lot of marketing/publicity stuff for it, so plan accordingly. And what 9ersaur said, you probably need capital, especially if the business has been stagnant. If they serve food, the kitchen may not be up to standards anymore, etc.  If after that you still want to do it, and have a plan, then definitely opt for buying them out directly or over time. You probably do not want the previous owners' emotional attachments getting in the way. (cue gordon ramsay's restaurant makeovers) That said, they may just like what you want to do and support you all the way, who knows.  Good luck!

negative: They may be able to transfer the land to a charitable remainder trust, which then enters into the transaction and pays them an income stream over their lifetime -- but definitely hire a professional before you attempt to do this.

negative: I used to work for large retailers doing merchandising software and have some contacts within Infor, the company doing Whole Foods' new merchandising software.  According to what I was told, Whole Food's doesn't track inventory at the chain, head quarter level. Infor was at some point actually building their entire offering using Whole Foods as a base. Building transfers was to be challenging as they don't have the an actual dataset to do so. They do have some very experienced people.   I will say this information is about 1 - 1 1/2 year old.  At any rate, if indeed Whole Foods doesn't track inventory at the corporate/chain level then I can see Amazon's delivery plan taking some time until they get their supply chain under control for e-commerce.

negative: How the hell do taxes work in Washington? British Columbia has experienced massive growth over the last 20 years (mostly foreign) and our schools got over crowded. Magically though, they had more money from city taxes and were able to build more schools, and improve the old ones.

negative: Find out why it's doing the way it is before getting yourself into it. Two brothers I worked for a few years ago got talked by family into buying an alley in a similar situation. They took out around a million dollars in collateralized loans to try and rehabilitate the place, but it just never took off and the brothers almost lost everything they owned. They were in legal battles for years, and their main business suffered as a result.

negative: Deposit it in a business savings account. The following below show you some options you can choose from. Next you can invest it in the market i.e. shares, bonds etc. If you have a more risky side, can go for peer to peer lending. If you are feeling really lucky and want to invest in the long term, then buy a property as a buy-to-let landlord. There are loads of options, you only need to explore.

negative: As a parent with a 4 yr old, it's not my reason. I want him to build something with his hands. Spend $50 on a Lego kit and what do you get? A tiny set of very specific parts for one build. Or I can spend that money on some other construction toy for half the price (blocks, Lincoln logs, train set) and you have similar enjoyment.

negative: "Great question. There are two ways to increase the amount of money you have: It's difficult to decrease your expenses past a certain point, and your question is focused on the first aspect anyway. But it's worth noting that controlling spending is a significant part of accumulating wealth. You need to make more money, and there's no trick to it. Ask for a raise, sure, that can't hurt. But also think about what you need to do to get a higher-paying job. There's a lot to think about: Does you current job have growth potential? Are you doing everything you can do to maximize that potential? If you're just phoning it in and collecting your paycheck, that's not going to make you much more money. But if you're working hard, learning new skills, and have an opportunity to grow into more responsibilities and more money, that's a good start. In my experience, the biggest paycheck increases have come from looking for new opportunities and switching jobs. (BTW, I'm not suggesting quitting your job. You need to always have the new job locked up before quitting the old job!) The wealthiest people I know are self-employed, and they worked hard to build up their companies. Do you work in an industry where you can build your skills to a point where you can go out on your own? Does entrepreneurship interest you? Either way, focus on your job, skills, and maximizing your income potential. Be your own advocate. Make sure your boss knows what a good job you're doing. If you need to start looking for other options, take your time and start looking. The often-quoted line, ""the harder I work, the luckier I get"" is appropriate."

negative: Put it in the bank and earn the meager interest rate.  By far your most important investment is finishing your education and as such this money might be needed to do so. If you don't need the money during your education you will undoubtedly need it for a new apartment/furnishings/moving expenses.

negative: No. I have partaken of but not lately. It's only become non-taboo here in the last 10 years and I was raised to think it was bad and people who do it are slackers or lazy and the like. I've thankfully grown out of that old way of thinking and now know how profitable it is and feel this is a good venture to begin building a nice portfolio. I'd also like to get into real estate and solar and wind as well

negative: You could rent it out to hunters, or a charge a fee for camping on it. If you log it, you can often get Federal assistance in paying for replanting. You can also get certifications that your timber is being grown and harvested sustainably, making future timber more valuable, while minimizing the environmental impacts of harvesting on the property.  You also may be able to get mitigation credits for restoring and maintaining the land. The credits can be sold to developers in the same watershed to cover the taxes.

negative: Capitalism != The Stock Market.    The market is just part of the economy.  Paul Singer could try making money the old fashioned way - by building a widget factory and selling widgets, or offering some other compelling service that customers want.    Plenty of capitalism to go around.

negative: Do you live in an old building? We have painting contractors in Vancouver for whom no challenge is too big! If you wonder about the work that goes into their trade, check out this article on @The Guardian.

negative: what are my options for raising the funds? Assuming you have decent credit, you can either mortgage your home or apply for a land loan in order to purchase the land. Since both your home and the land have value, either one can act as collateral in case you default on your loan. Land loans tend to have a higher interest rate and down payment, however. This is because banks see land loans as a riskier investment since it's easier for you to walk away from an empty plot of land than your own home.

negative: A *licensed* electrician is pretty much guaranteed to have the skills. A union electrician is almost guaranteed to fuck a project schedule  up.  >Unions also fought for and got us a 40 hour work week and overtime pay. Benefits and disability insurance.   Snore. Clichés are getting tiresome. You pay for disability insurance. Benefits came about as a way to get around WWII pay freezes. Look it up.  >currently politicians are rolling back those protections  No, they're not.  >the work to get those benefits will be that much harder  With this self-contradiction, you have proven my point: Unions were once needed, but now it's just abusing for the benefits for union workers only.  Perhaps you got confused by what is happening in Wisconsin.  >Police are pepper spraying old grandmas and people sitting down not doing anything  You are just full of tiresome clichés. If OWS wasn't violent and unruly, this wouldn't happen. Nobody got raped at a Tea Party event. No shitting on cop cars. No Teargas. OWS is responsible for those things that you cite.  The right to peacefully assemble does not mean you can encircle and block the police from doing their lawful job, which is what happened at UC Davis. The old lady got trapped in a protest that got out of hand thanks to OWS idiots.  Stop whining. Stop being violent. Get permits and do the right thing and you might be just as effective in electing change as the Tea Party has been. I doubt it though. OWS children are just plain ignorant.  The 1st Amendment doesn't mean you can build tree forts in the park. That was the final nail in its coffin.

negative: You should be able to sell it to a collection agency. I just googled and this is the first results: CollectYourBills.com

negative: The bank doesn't want to loan you money to build a house on property you don't own. What happens if the owner gets mad at you and wants you to leave? What happens if the owner's will gives the land to somebody else? The bank would be taking a big risk. You need to buy the land before building the house.

negative: "What you're looking at is something called ""Bridge-Financing"".  Essentially, it allows you to borrow your down-payment from the bank, using your old home as collateral.  The interest rate varies, but if you get the bridge from the same institution as your new mortgage, they will often be a bit flexible.   You take possession of the new home, and begin mortgage payments on it normally.  When the old home is sold, the bridge is paid off.   Note that the deposit on signing for the new house will still have to be cash.  All bets are off if you are talking about a NEW new home, as builders usually require advance payments during the build."

negative: If you're willing to pay a fee, you can probably just get a commercial appraiser to give you a valuation.  In Australia I think it's around $100-200.

negative: Are there any local charities that could fund the work, and thus take Gift-Aided donations for it? Depending on the details, a School PTA or the Parish Church could justify sponsoring some improvements to the local park as part of their remit. You then give donations to them and they claim the Gift Aid and pay for the improvements with the total. Setting up a whole new charity is the other option, but unless the improvements are very expensive, that feels like overkill.

negative: I've found you can give the money to charity.  If you text REDCROSS to 90999 for example you can give $10 to the redcross

negative: "Your dec ision is actually rather more complex than it first appears. The problem is that the limits on what you can pay into the HTB ISA might make it less attractive - it will all depend. Currently, you can put £15k/year into a normal ISA (Either Cash, or Stocks and Share or a combination). The HTB ISA only allows £200/month = £2,400/year. Since you can only pay into one Cash ISA in any one year you are going to lose out on the other £12,600 that you could save and grow tax free. Having said that, the 25% contribution by the govt. is extremely attractive and probably outweighs any tax saving. It is not so clear whether you can contribute to a HTB ISA (cash) and put the rest of your allowance into a Stocks and Shares ISA - if you can, you should seriously consider doing so. Yes this exposes you to a riskier investment (shares can go down as well as up etc.) but the benefits can be significant (and the gains are tax free). As said above, the rules are that money you have paid into an ISA in earlier years is separate - you can't pay any more into the ""old"" one whilst paying into a ""new"" one but you don't have to do anything with the ""old"" ISA. But you might WANT to do something since institutions are amazingly mean (underhand) in their treatment of customers. You may well find that the interest rate you get on your ""old"" ISA becomes less competitive over time. You should (Must) check every year what rate you are getting and whether you can get a better rate in a different ISA - if there is a better rate ISA and if it allows transfers IN, you should arrange to make the trasnfer - you ABSOLUTELY MUST TRANSFER between ISAs - never even think of taking the money out and then trying to pay it in to another ISA, it must be transferred directly between ISAs. So overall, yes, stop paying into the ""old"" ISA, open a new HTB ISA next year and if you can pay in the maximum do so. But if you can afford to save more, you might be able to open a Stocks and Shares ISA as well and pay into that too (max £15k into the pair in one year). And then do not ""forget"" about the ""old"" ISA(s) you will probably need to move all the money you have in the ""old"" one(s) regualrly into new ISAs to obtain a sensible rate. You might do well to read up on all this a lot more - I strongly recommend the site http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/ which gives a lot of helpful advice about everything to do with money (no I don't have any association with them)."

negative: As all said, the age limitation thing is nothing, and saving money not necessarily means to live poor nor Skimpy, spend your needs and try to get what you need instead of what you want, the 24 years old is a good start for saving money, the whole life still in front of you Good luck!

negative: "Do you know how it cost the USA to build the national highway system? Do you know what is ""investment""?  Do you how much people pay (back) in taxes when they have a job and earn a salary (rather then get money from welfare)?   Do you understand that in the Globalists world, the USA has to compete with salaries paid in China for their workers?"

negative: I recommend fixing the roof. You're going to pay for it eventually, either as an emergency repair or a concession at sale.

negative: If you have a family member with sufficient funds to lend, you might consider writing a deed that gives them a percentage of ownership in the property in exchange for a loan, then you could later take a mortgage to pay back that loan and purchase that percentage of the property back. If it was me, I would probably just pay cash and try to get a home equity line of credit for emergency funds once I started working again. All the money I would have paid into a mortgage, and perhaps more--I would invest to rebuild the investment account as quickly as possible.

negative: Quickly check the escrow balance with the new lender. What was supposed to happen is that the old lender would send the money they were holding in escrow to the new lender with information regarding how it was calculated, and what you should be charged each month. The new lender would continue servicing the escrow at the same monthly rate, until they did a yearly or semi-annually re-analysis of the escrow account. This is how all the mortgage transfers that I have had happened, as long as it wasn't due to a refinancing of the loan. If it was a refinancing the escrow transfer was done at closing. He said that they close the escrow account and refunded it and they   start a new escrow with the new lender. The new company would not want to have the money sent to you, because they would now have to require you to send the money on to them. There could be a gap of several weeks. They would have to pay any bills that come due during that gap, without the cash in the escrow account. If the escrow account is either zero, or very low, expect that the new company will be sending you a notice. The old lender could have convinced the new lender to refund the money back to them, or the old lender never transferred the funds. If a notice comes from the new lender, failure to replace the money will put your loan into default. If the sum of money is large they may have to increase the monthly escrow amount to make it up in 6 to 12 months. After that period the monthly escrow will return to a more reasonable level. If the old lender comes after you expect that the request won't be over the phone.  One thing the old lender could do is to request the loan be transferred back to them. The funds would then flow back to their company, but your escrow balance would now be zero, and they would now up your monthly escrow amount to get back on track.