query: Where should I invest my savings?

positive: Basically the first thing you should do before you invest your money is to learn about investing and learn about what you want to invest in. Another thing to think about is that usually low risk can also mean low returns. As you are quite young and have some savings put aside you should generally aim for higher risk higher return investments and then when you start to reach retirement age aim for less risky lower return investments. In saying that, just because an investment is considered high risk does not mean you have to be exposed to the full risk of that investment. You do this by managing your risk to an acceptable level which will allow you to sleep at night. To do this you need to learn about what you are investing in. As an example about managing your risk in an investment, say you want to invest $50,000 in shares. If you put the full $50,000 into one share and that share price drops dramatically you will lose a large portion of your money straight away. If instead you spent a maximum of $10,000 on 5 different shares, even if one of them falls dramatically, you still have another 4 which may be doing a lot better thus minimising your losses. To take it one step further you might say if anyone of the shares you bought falls by 20% then you will sell those shares and limit your losses to $2000 per share. If the worst case scenario occurred and all 5 of your shares fell during a stock market crash you would limit your total losses to $10,000 instead of $50,000. Most successful investors put just as much if not more emphasis on managing the risk on their investments and limiting their losses as they do in selecting the investments. As I am not in the US, I cannot really comment whether it is the right time to buy property over there, especially as the market conditions would be different in different states and in different areas of each state. However, a good indication of when to buy properties is when prices have dropped and are starting to stabilise. As you are renting at the moment one option you might want to look at is buying a place to live in so you don't need to rent any more. You can compare your current rent payment with the mortgage payment if you were to buy a house to live in. If your mortgage payments are lower than your rent payments then this could be a good option. But whatever you do make sure you learn about it first. Make sure you spend the time looking at for sale properties for a few months in the area you want to buy before you do buy. This will give you an indication of how much properties in that area are really worth and if prices are stable, still falling or starting to go up. Good luck, and remember, research, research and more research. Even if you are to take someone elses advice and recommendations, you should learn enough yourself to be able to tell if their advice and recommendations make sense and are right for your current situation.

positive: Since you mention the religion restriction, you should probably look into the stock market or funds investing in it. Owning stock basically means you own a part of a company and benefit from any increase in value the company may have (and 'loose' on decreases, provided you sell your stock) and you also earn dividends over the company's profit. If you do your research properly and buy into stable companies you shouldn't need to bother about temporary market movements or crashes (do pay attention to deterioration on the businesses you own though). When buying stocks you should be aiming for the very long run. As mentioned by Victor, do your research, I recommend you start it by looking into 'value stocks' should you choose that path.

negative: "I am in a different situation, because I earn more than I spend, but I have found that I need to make the money inaccessible if I want to really avoid spending it.  I used to just throw my paychecks into a high-yield savings account, but eventually the balance was large enough that a ""large purchase"" didn't seem like ""that much"" (because I would have had so much left in the account after the purchase).  It was way too easy for me to spend way too much. Now, I invest my savings automatically.  The obvious benefit is my money has a much higher growth rate than a simple savings account (especially with fed interest rates so low).  I invest most of my savings in 401(k)/IRA retirement accounts, where there are severe penalties for withdrawing prior to retirement age.  Then, I invest a significant portion to a regular brokerage account, where the money is invested in stock and bond funds.  This money is accessible within a few days of whenever I need it.  The remainder of my savings goes into a savings account as cash I can get to at any time.  All 3 accounts grow with every paycheck (market fluctuations aside).   This 3-tiered system helps me to categorize my savings as ""Never, ever touch"" (retirement accounts), ""Touch, only if I can wait 3 days and am willing to pay taxes"" (brokerage account), or ""touch whenever you need it, with no penalties"" (Savings account).  If my savings account grows too much, I'll move money from there to the brokerage account (where it has more growth potential).  The longer my money is invested in the brokerage accounts, the less taxes I'll need to pay when I sell/withdraw the funds, so that's even more incentive for me to keep those funds where they are. I have credit cards, so in my opinion, having to wait 3 days for funds from my investment account to become accessible is considered ""accessible in an emergency,"" because my credit cards can be used to cover a large purchase for 3 days, and as long as I pay it off within the grace period, there's no interest charged. tl;dr investing is probably the smartest way to both grow your money and prevent the urge to spend it right away.  My advice is to start with a 401(k) or IRA as soon as you can, since the younger you are, the more time until retirement that your money has to compound.  Investing $100 more a month can mean hundreds of thousands of additional dollars in your account when you're ready to retire."

negative: "Negative Yields on Bonds is opposite of Getting profit on your investment. This is some kind of new practice from world wide financial institute.  the interest rate is -0.05% for ten years. So a $100,000 bond under   those terms would be ""discounted"" to $100,501, give or take. No, actually what you are going to get out from this investment is after 10 years when this investment is mature for liquidation, you will get return not even your principle $100,000 , but ( (Principle $100,000) minus (Negative Yields @ -0.05) Times ( 10 Years ) ) assume the rates are on simple annual rate.  Now anyone may wander why should someone going to buy this kind of investment where I am actually giving away not only possible profit also losing some of principle amount!  This might looks real odd, but there is other valid reason for issuing / investing on such kind of bond.  From investor prospective: Every asset has its own 'expense' for keeping ownership of it. This is also true for money/currency depending on its size. And other investment possibility and risk factor. The same way people maintain checking account with virtually no visible income vs. Savings account where bank issue some positive rate of interest with various time factor like annually/half-yearly/monthly. People with lower level of income but steady on flow choose savings where business personals go for checking one. Think of Millions of Ideal money with no secure investment opportunity have to option in real. Option one to keeping this large amount of money in hand, arranging all kind of security which involve extra expense, risk and headache where Option two is invest on bond issued by Government of country. Owner of that amount will go for second one even with negative yields on bonds where he is paying in return of security and risk free grantee of getting it back on time.  On Issuing Government prospective: Here government actually want people not to keep money idle investing bonds, but find any possible sector to invest which might profitable for both Investor + Grater Community ultimately country.  This is a basic understanding on issue/buy/selling of Negative interest bearing bond on market.   Hope I could explain it here. Not to mention, English is not my 1st language at all. So ignore my typo, grammatical error and welcome to fix it.  Cheers!"

negative: "Some of the other answers recommended peer-to-peer lending and property markets. I would not invest in either of these. Firstly, peer-to-peer lending is not a traditional investment and we may not have enough historical data for the risk-to-return ratio. Secondly, property investments have a great risk unless you diversify, which requires a huge portfolio. Crowd-funding for one property is not a traditional investment, and may have drawbacks. For example, what if you disagree with other crowd-funders about the required repairs for the property? If you invest in the property market, I recommend a well-diversified fund that owns many properties. Beware of high debt leverage used to enhance returns (and, at the same time, risk) and high fees when selecting a fund. However, traditionally it has been a better choice to invest in stocks than to invest in property market. Beware of anyone who says that the property market is ""too good to not get into"" without specifying which part of the world is meant. Note also that many companies invest in properties, so if you invest only in a well-diversified stock index fund, you may already have property investments in your portfolio! However, in your case I would keep the money in risk-free assets, i.e. bank savings or a genuine low-cost money market fund (i.e. one that doesn't invest in corporate debt or in variable-rate loans which have short duration but long maturity). The reason is that you're going to be unemployed soon, and thus, you may need the money soon. If you have an investment horizon of, say, 10 years, then I would throw stocks into the mix, and if you're saving for retirement, then I would go all in to stocks. In the part of the world where I live in, money market funds generally have better return than bank savings, and better diversification too. However, your 2.8% interest sounds rather high (the money market fund I have in the past invested in currently yields at 0.02%, but then again I live in the eurozone), so be sure to get estimates for the yields of different risk-free assets. So, my advice for investing is simple: risk-free assets for short time horizon, a mixture of stocks and risk-free assets for medium time horizon, and only stocks for long time horizon. In any case, you need a small emergency fund, too, which you should consider a thing separate from your investments. My emergency fund is 20 000 EUR. Your 50 000 AUD is bit more than 30 000 EUR, so you don't really have that much money to invest, only a bit more than a reasonably sized emergency fund. But then again, I live in rental property, so my expenses are probably higher than yours. If you can foresee a very long time horizon for part of your investment, you could perhaps invest 50% of your money to stocks (preference being a geographically diversified index fund or a number of index funds), but I wouldn't invest more because of the need for an emergency fund."

negative: I would agree, my arguments have been from the extreme, because my OP in this thread was a reply to an extreme statement:    > Tax evaders are heroes.   > I don't think taxes should be abolished. But since it is someone else's income, it needs to be used sparingly and efficiently. Subsidizing internet and electric cars aren't something you should be spending millions of people's money in.  Okay, now we are getting to some common ground. Specifics are where the real meat lies. You started with internet and electric cars. Sweat, lets start there. I infer from this that you enjoy / support the internet and gas powered cars, and are against government intervention when it comes to the dissemination of the internet and investment in electric cars?   What if I told you that the prevalence and success of both of those inventions were spurred by government investment?

negative: "So this has been bugging me for a while, because I am facing a similar dilemma and I don't think anyone gave a clear answer. I bought a 2012 kia soul in 2012. 36 months financing at 300/mo. Will be done with my car loan in 2015. I plan on keeping it, while saving the same amount of money 300/mo until I buy my next car. But, I also have an option of trading it in for the the next car. Question: should I trade it in in 2015. should I keep it for 2 years more? 3 years more, before I buy the next car? What makes most financial sense and savings. I tried to dig up some data on edmunds - the trade-in value and ""true cost to own"" calculator. The make and model of my car started in 2010, so I do not have historical data, as well as ""cost to own"" calculator only spans 5 years. So - this is what I came up with:  Where numbers in blue are totally made up/because I don't have the data for it. Granted, the trade-in values for the ""future"" years are guesstimated - based on Kia Soul's trade-in values from previous years (2010, 2011, 2012) But, this is handy, and as it gets closer to 2015 and beyond, I can re-plug in the data where it is available and have a better understanding of the trade-in vs keep it longer decision. Hope this helps. If the analysis is totally off the rocker, please let me know - i'll adjust it/delete it. Thank you"

negative: "My gut reaction is how legal is his statement?  *""So where am I going with all this? It's quite simple. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company... So, when you make your decision to vote, ask yourself, which candidate understands the economics of business ownership and who doesn't? Whose policies will endanger your job? Answer those questions and you should know who might be the one capable of protecting and saving your job.""*  If an employer sent this to me I'd seriously consider that a threat in regards against how I practice my political beliefs.  It undermines my right to educate myself."

negative: "You have a few correlated questions here:  Yes you can. There are only a few investment strategies that require a minimum contribution and those aren't ones that would get a blanket recommendation anyway. Investing in bonds or stocks is perfectly possible with limited funds. You're never too young to start. The power of interest means that the more time you give your money to grow, the larger your eventual gains will be (provided your investment is beating inflation). If your financial situation allows it, it makes sense to invest money you don't need immediately, which brings us to: This is the one you have to look at most. You're young but have a nice chunk of cash in a savings account. That money won't grow much and you could be losing purchasing power to inflation but on the other hand that money also isn't at risk. While there are dozens of investment options1 the two main ones to look at are: bonds: these are fixed income, which means they're fairly safe, but the downside is that you need to lock up your money for a long time to get a better interest rate than a savings account index funds that track the market: these are basically another form of stock where each share represents fractions of shares of other companies that are tracked on an index such as the S&P 500 or Nasdaq. These are much riskier and more volatile, which is why you should look at this as a long-term investment as well because given enough time these are expected to trend upwards. Look into index funds further to understand why. But this isn't so much about what you should invest in, but more about the fact that an investment, almost by definition, means putting money away for a long period of time. So the real question remains: how much can you afford to put away? For that you need to look at your individual situation and your plans for the future. Do you need that money to pay for expenses in the coming years? Do you want to save it up for college? Do you want to invest and leave it untouched to inspire you to keep saving? Do you want to save for retirement? (I'm not sure if you can start saving via IRAs and the like at your age but it's worth looking into.) Or do you want to spend it on a dream holiday or a car? There are arguments to be made for every one of those.  Most people will tell you to keep such a ""low"" sum in a savings account as an emergency fund but that also depends on whether you have a safety net (i.e. parents) and how reliable they are. Most people will also tell you that your long-term money should be in the stock market in the form of a balanced portfolio of index funds. But I won't tell you what to do since you need to look at your own options and decide for yourself what makes sense for you. You're off to a great start if you're thinking about this at your age and I'd encourage you to take that interest further and look into educating yourself on the investments options and funds that are available to you and decide on a financial plan. Involving your parents in that is sensible, not in the least because your post-high school plans will be the most important variable in said plan. To recap my first point and answer your main question, if you've decided that you want to invest and you've established a specific budget, the size of that investment budget should not factor into what you invest it in. 1 - For the record: penny stocks are not an investment. They're an expensive form of gambling."

negative: I have about $1K in savings, and have been told that you should get into investment and saving for retirement early. I make around $200 per week, which about $150 goes into savings. That's $10k per year.  The general rule of thumb is that you should have six months income as an emergency fund.  So your savings should be around $5k.  Build that first.   Some argue that the standard should be six months of living expenses rather than income.  Personally, I think that this example is exactly why it is income rather than living expenses.  Six months of living expenses in this case would only be $1250, which won't pay for much.  And note that living expenses can only be calculated after the fact.  If your estimate of $50 a week is overly optimistic, you might not notice for months (until some large living expense pops up).   Another problem with using living expenses as the measure is that if you hold down your living expenses to maximize your savings, this helps both measures.  Then you hit your savings target, and your living expenses increase.  So you need more savings.  By contrast, if your income increases but your living expenses do not, you still need more savings but you can also save more money.  Doesn't really change the basic analysis though.  Either way you have an emergency savings target that you should hit before starting your retirement savings.   If you save $150 per week, then you should have around $4k in savings at the beginning of next year.  That's still low for an emergency fund by the income standard.  So you probably shouldn't invest next year.  With a living expenses standard, you could have $6250 in savings by April 15th (deadline for an IRA contribution that appears in the previous tax year).  That's $5000 more than the $1250 emergency fund, so you could afford an IRA (probably a Roth) that year.   If you save $7500 next year and start with $4k in savings (under the income standard for emergency savings), that would leave you with $11,500.  Take $5500 of that and invest in an IRA, probably a Roth.  After that, you could make a $100 deposit per week for the next year.  Or just wait until the end.   If you invested in an IRA the previous year because you decided use the living expenses standard, you would only have $6500 at the end of the year.  If you wait until you have $6750, you could max out your IRA contribution.  At that point, your excess income for each year would be larger than the maximum IRA contribution, so you could max it out until your circumstances change.   If you don't actually save $3k this year and $7500 next year, don't sweat it.  A college education is enough of an investment at your age.  Do that first, then emergency savings, then retirement.   That will flip around once you get a better paying, long term job.  Then you should include retirement savings as an expected cost.  So you'd pay the minimum required for your education loans and other required living expenses, then dedicate an amount for retirement savings, then build your emergency savings, then pay off your education loans (above the minimum payment).  This is where it can pay to use the more aggressive living expenses standard, as that allows you to pay off your education loans faster.   I would invest retirement savings in a nice, diversified index fund (or two since maintaining the correct stock/bond mix of 70%-75% stocks is less risky than investing in just bonds much less just stocks).  Investing in individual stocks is something you should do with excess money that you can afford to lose.  Secure your retirement first.  Then stock investments are gravy if they pan out.  If they don't, you're still all right.  But if they do, you can make bigger decisions, e.g. buying a house.   Realize that buying individual stocks is about more than just buying an app.  You have to both check the fundamentals (which the app can help you do) and find other reasons to buy a stock.  If you rely on an app, then you're essentially joining everyone else using that app.  You'll make the same profit as everyone else, which won't be much because you all share the profit opportunities with the app's system.  If you want to use someone else's system, stick with mutual funds.  The app system is actually more dangerous in the long term.   Early in the app's life cycle, its system can produce positive returns because a small number of people are sharing the benefits of that system.  As more people adopt it though, the total possible returns stay the same.  At some point, users saturate the app.  All the possible returns are realized.  Then users are competing with each other for returns.  The per user returns will shrink as usage grows.   If you have your own system, then you are competing with fewer people for the returns from it.  Share the fundamental analysis, but pick your stocks based on other criteria.  Fundamental analysis will tell you if a stock is overvalued.  The other criteria will tell you which undervalued stock to buy.

negative: "All of the provided advice is great, but a slightly different viewpoint on debt is worth mentioning. Here are the areas that you should concentrate your efforts and the (rough) order you should proceed. Much of the following is predicated upon your having a situation where you need to get out of debt, and learn to better budget and control your spending. You may already have accomplished some of these steps, or you may prioritize differently. Many people advise prioritizing contributing to a 401(k) savings plan. But with the assumption that you need advise because you have debt trouble, you are probably paying absurd interest rates, and any savings you might have will be earning much lower rates than you are paying on consumer debt. If you are already contributing, continue the plan. But remember, you are looking for advice because your financial situation is in trouble, so you need to put out the fire (your present problem), and learn how to manage your money and plan for the future. Compose a budget, comprised of the following three areas (the exact percentages are fungible, fit them to your circumstances). Here is where planning can get fun, when you have freed yourself from debt, and you can make choices that resonate with your individual goals. Once you have ""put out the fire"" of debt, then you should do two things at the same time. As you pay off debt (and avoid further debt), you will find that saving for both independence and retirement become easier.  The average American household may have $8000+ credit card debt, and at 20-30%, the interest payments are $150-200/month, and the average car payment is nearly $500/month.  Eliminate debt and you will have $500-800/month that you can comfortably allocate towards retirement. But you also need to learn (educate yourself) how to invest your money to grow your money, and earn income from your savings. This is an area where many struggle, because we are taught to save, but we are not taught how to invest, choose investments wisely and carefully, and how to decide our goals.  Investing needs to be addressed separately, but you need to learn how. Live in an affordable house, and pay off your mortgage.  Consider that the payment on a mortgage on even a modest $200K house is over $1000/month. Combine saving the money you would have paid towards a mortgage payment with the money you would have paid towards credit card debt or a car loan. Saving becomes easy when you are freed from these large debts."

negative: I'm aiming to buy in four and a half years... I'll have about $120k in savings between various accounts and be making $52k a year with no debt and no obligations... no kids, I'll have excellent credit (building it--I didn't want cards while paying off student loans) and still... I'll be lucky to be able to afford a 600 sq foot condo with a $300/mo HOA fee.   Fucking SF Bay Area. I can't even afford to live in a Section-8 complex right now. Seriously. What the bloody fucking fuck ($1,500/mo if you're not Section-8... they get discounts).   Thank goodness for my dad, he's the only reason I was able to pay off my student loans within two years of getting my current job and the only reason I am able to save so much.  Our system is seriously fucked. People making $44k a year should be able to afford an apartment within a hour commute of work in an area where they don't have to dodge bullets or fight rats....

negative: In a comment on this answer you asked  It's not clear to me why the ability to defer the gains would matter (since you never materially benefit until you actually sell) but the estate step up in basis is a great point! Could you describe a hypothetical exploitive scenario (utilizing a wash sale) in a little more detail?  This sounds like you still have the same question as originally, so I'll take a stab at answering with an example.   I sell some security for a $10,000 profit.  I then sell another security at a $10,000 loss and immediately rebuy.  So pay no taxes (without the rule).  Assuming a 15% rate, that's $1500 in savings which I realize immediately.  Next year, I sell that same security for a $20,000 profit over the $10,000 loss basis (so a $10,000 profit over my original purchase).  I sell and buy another security to pay no taxes.  In fact, I pay no taxes like this for fifty years as I live off my investments (and a pension or social security that uses up my tax deductions).  Then I die.  All my securities step up in basis to their current market value.  So I completely evade taxes on $500,000 in profits.  That's $75,000 in tax savings to make my heirs richer.  And they're already getting at least $500,000 worth of securities.   Especially consider the case where I sell a privately held security to a private buyer who then sells me back the same shares at the same price.   Don't think that $10,000 is enough?  Remember that you also get the original value.  But this also scales.  It could be $100,000 in gains as well, for $750,000 in tax savings over the fifty years.  That's at least $5 million of securities.   The effective result of this would be to make a 0% tax on capital gains for many rich people.   Worse, a poorer person can't do the same thing.  You need to have many investments to take advantage of this.  If a relatively poor person with two $500 investments tried this, that person would lose all the benefit in trading fees.  And of course such a person would run out of investments quickly.   Really poor people have $0 in investments, so this is totally impractical.

negative: Here are the specific Vanguard index funds and ETF's I use to mimic Ray Dalio's all weather portfolio for my taxable investment savings. I invest into this with Vanguard personal investor and brokerage accounts. Here's a summary of the performance results from 2007 to today:  2007 is when the DBC commodity fund was created, so that's why my results are only tested back that far. I've tested the broader asset class as well and the results are similar, but I suggest doing that as well for yourself. I use portfoliovisualizer.com to backtest the results of my portfolio along with various asset classes, that's been tremendously useful. My opinionated advice would be to ignore the local investment advisor recommendations. Nobody will ever care more about your money than you, and their incentives are misaligned as Tony mentions in his book.  Mutual funds were chosen over ETF's for the simplicity of auto-investment.  Unfortunately I have to manually buy the ETF shares each month (DBC and GLD). I'm 29 and don't use this for retirement savings. My retirement is 100% VSMAX. I'll adjust this in 20 years or so to be more conservative. However, when I get close to age 45-50 I'm planning to shift into this allocation at a market high point.  When I approach retirement, this is EXACTLY where I want to be. Let's say you had $2.7M in your retirement account on Oct 31, 2007 that was invested in 100% US Stocks. In Feb of 2009 your balance would be roughly $1.35M. If you wanted to retire in 2009 you most likely couldn't. If you had invested with this approach you're account would have dropped to $2.4M in Feb of 2009.  Disclaimer: I'm not a financial planner or advisor, nor do I claim to be. I'm a software engineer and I've heavily researched this approach solely for my own benefit. I have absolutely no affiliation with any of the tools, organizations, or funds mentioned here and there's no possible way for me to profit or gain from this. I'm not recommending anyone use this, I'm merely providing an overview of how I choose to invest my own money. Take or leave it, that's up to you. The loss/gain incured from this is your responsibility, and I can't be held accountable.

negative: Growing up poor leaves so many holes in your education. Not knowing how to manage money compounds the problems. What middle and upper class parents teach their children, I had to read a dozen books to learn. For example, negotiating starting pay. I didn't even know this was possible since minimum wage jobs pay- minimum wage. No negotiations.   I knew about dickering for a price when buying a car, but had no clue you could do this for other purchases. Clipping coupons was of course one of my skills, but had never bought in bulk to save money.   My dad taught me how to change a tire and the oil in my first beater, but I had never taken clothes to be dry cleaned or shoes to be resoled. Basically, I had never owned shoes worth repairing or clothes that couldn't be thrown in a washing machine with my jeans and tee shirts.   How do you choose where to invest your 401k? Had no clue. That required another six months of intense study and the help of a librarian.  You get thrown all these curve balls in your first real job that everyone else seemed to know all about it. Etiquette in a meeting. Proper handshake. Can I eat one of the muffins? Can I save one to go with my lunch? You feel silly, almost childish.

negative: I am 10 years out of college and been debt free for 4.  My school would have cost me $180k for 4 years.  I was aware of the cost to go to the school I wanted and so I worked in highschool for every possible scholarship available.  I then went into a degree program which I knew was a good investment, engineering.  I came out of college in the middle of the recession with you guessed it, around $100k in debt.  I moved to a place where the cost of living made it so I could get a job and save.  I did not live a lavish lifestyle, I invested my money well, and I worked hard.  Garbage in, garbage out.  Go to a bad school, not worth it.  Do not work hard in college, not worth it.  Work hard in a major which has no economic value, not worth it.  Do not set yourself up for success by working hard in high school, getting things like AP credits and scholarships, not worth it.

negative: "I actually love this question, and have hashed this out with a friend of mine where my premise was that at some volume of money it must be advantageous to simply track the index yourself. There some obvious touch-points: Most people don't have anywhere near the volume of money required for even a $5 commission outweigh the large index fund expense ratios. There are logistical issues that are massively reduced by holding a fund when it comes to winding down your investment(s) as you get near retirement age. Index funds are not touted as categorically ""the best"" investment, they are being touted as the best place for the average person to invest. There is still a management component to an index like the S&P500.  The index doesn't simply buy a share of Apple and watch it over time.  The S&P 500 isn't simply a single share of each of the 500 larges US companies it's market cap weighted with frequent rebalancing and constituent changes.  VOO makes a lot of trades every day to track the S&P index, ""passive index investing"" is almost an oxymoron. The most obvious part of this is that if index funds were ""the best"" way to invest money Berkshire Hathaway would be 100% invested in VOO.  The argument for ""passive index investing"" is simplified for public consumption.  The reality is that over time large actively managed funds have under-performed the large index funds net of fees.  In part, the thrust of the advice is that the average person is, or should be, more concerned with their own endeavors than they are managing their savings.  Investment professionals generally want to avoid ""How come I my money only returned 4% when the market index returned 7%?  If you track the index, you won't do worse than the index; this helps people sleep better at night. In my opinion the dirty little secret of index funds is that they are able to charge so much less because they spend $0 making investment decisions and $0 on researching the quality of the securities they hold.  They simply track an index; XYZ company is 0.07% of the index, then the fund carries 0.07% of XYZ even if the manager thinks something shady is going on there. The argument for a majority of your funds residing in Mutual Funds/ETFs is simple, When you're of retirement age do you really want to make decisions like should I sell a share of Amazon or a share of Exxon?  Wouldn't you rather just sell 2 units of SRQ Index fund and completely maintain your investment diversification and not pay commission?  For this simplicity you give up three basis points?  It seems pretty reasonable to me."

negative: "Transferring the money or keeping it in US does has no effect on taxes. Your residency status has. Assuming you are Resident Alien in US for tax purpose and have paid the taxes to IRS and you are ""Non-Resident"" Indian for tax purposes in India as you are more than 182 outside India. How would it effect my Tax in US and India If you are ""Non-Resident"" in India for tax purposes, there is no tax liability of this in India. I have transferred an amount of approx 15-20k$ to Indian Account (not NRE) By RBI regulation, if you are ""Non-Resident"" then you should get your savings account converted to ""NRO"". You may not may not choose to open an NRE account. To keep the paper work clear it helps that you open an NRE account in India. Any investment needed ? Where do i need to declare if any ? These are not relevant.  Note any income generated in India, i.e. interest in Savings account / FDs / Rent etc; taxes need to be paid in India and declared in US and taxes paid in US as well. There is some relief under DTAA. There are quite a few question on this site that will help you clarify what needs to be done."

negative: Your mortgage represents a negative cash flow of $X for N months. The typical mortgage prepayment doesn't reduce your next payment, but does reduce the length of the mortgage. If you look at the amortization table of a 30 year loan, you might see a payment of $1000 but only $50 going to principal. So if on day one you send an extra $51 or so to the bank, you find that in 30 years you just saved that $1000 payment. In effect, it was a long term bond or CD, yielding the post tax rate of the mortgage. Say your loan were 7%. At 7%, money doubles every 10 years or so. 30 years is 3 doubles or 8X. If I were to offer you $1000 and ask for $7500 in 30 years, you might accept it, with an agreement to buy me out if you refinanced. For me, that would be an investment. Just like buying a bond. In fact, there is a real return, as you see the cash flow at the end. The payments 'not made' are your payback.  Those who insist it's not an investment are correct in the strict sense of the word's definition, but pedantic for the fact in practice, the prepayment is a choice to be considered alongside other investment choices. When I have a mortgage, I am the mortgagor, the bank, the mortgagee. Same as a company issuing a bond, the Bank holds my bond and I'm making payments to them. They hold my bond as an investment. There is no question of that. In fact, they package these and sell them as CMOs, groups of mortgages. A pre-payment is me buying back the last coupon on my mortgage. I fail to see the distinction between me 'buying back' $10K in future coupons on my own loan or me investing $10K in someone else's loans.  The real question for me is whether this makes sense when rates are so low. At 4%, I'd say it's a matter of prioritizing any high rate debt and any other investments that might yield more. But even so, it's an investment yielding 4%.  Over the years, I've developed the priorities of where to put new money - The priorities are debatable. I have my opinion, and my reasons to back them up. In general, it's a balance between risk and return. In my opinion, there's something wrong with ignoring a dollar for dollar match on the 401(k) in most circumstances. Others seem to prefer being 100% debt free before saving at all. There's a balance that might be different for each individual. As I started, the mortgage is a fixed return, with no chance to just get it back if needed. If your cash savings is pretty high, and the choice is a .001% CD or prepay a 4% mortgage, I'd use some funds to pay it down. But not to the point you have no liquid reserves.

negative: I use to think there was something wrong with me because I always hated spending money.  This hatred of spending resulted in me always saving quite a bit of my income. Since I don't enjoy spending it, why am I making and saving it (besides for an emergency fund)?  I've come to the realization that I enjoy my free time more than I enjoy making lots of money.  So I go to work for something to do - and pay the bills - but I am no longer trying to advance my career, or be the best at my profession, or climb some corporate ladder, or be some superstar.  In fact, I'm considering a career change where I would make half of what I'm making now. What's my point?  If having a lot of savings depresses you and you don't enjoy spending it then consider reducing your income.

negative: I just read through all of the answers to this question and there is an important point that no one has mentioned yet: Oftentimes, buying a house is actually cheaper than renting the identical house. I'm looking around my area (suburbs of Chicago, IL) in 2017 and seeing some houses that are both for sale and for rent, which makes for an easy comparison. If I buy the house with $0 down (you can't actually put $0 down but it makes the numerical comparison more accurate if you do), my monthly payment including mortgage (P+I), taxes, insurance, and HOA, is still $400 less than the monthly rent payment. (If I put 20% down it's an even bigger savings.) So, in addition to the the tax advantages of owning a home, the locked in price that helps you in an economy that experiences inflation, and the accumulated equity, you may even have extra cash flow too. If you were on the fence when you would have had to pay more per month in order to purchase, it should be a no-brainer to buy if your monthly cost is lower. From the original question: Get a loan and buy a house, or I can live for the rest of my life in rent and save the extra money (investing and stuff). Well, you may be able to buy a house and save even more money than if you rent. Of course, this is highly dependent on your location.

negative: "Two things you should consider about paying off student loans ahead of the 10 year amortization schedule: What interest rate are you paying on your loans? What are you earning on your investments in a balanced mutual fund? When you pay off your student loans you are essentially guaranteed a return of the interest rate on your loan (future interest you would have had to pay). However if you are investing well and getting a good return on your investments you will get a greater return. Ex. Half of my student loans are at 6.8%, thr other half are at 2.5%. I make the minimum payments on the loans at 2.5% and invest my money in tax sheltered retirement accounts. The return on these funds has been 8% and that is on per-tax dollars so really closer to 11%. Now there is also downside risk when you invest in the market, but 2.5% guaranteed I will forgoe for 11% in low risk return. However my loans at 6.8% I repay in excess of the minimums because 6.8% guaranteed return is pretty good! So this decision is based on your confidence in your investments and your own risk tolerance. Once you pay your bank on your student loans that money is gone, out of your control. If you need it in the future you may need to pay higher interest on an unsecured loan, or you may not be able to borrow it. When you want to make large purchases (a car, house) that money you per-paid on your loans isn't available to you as a down payment. Banks should want you to have some of your own ""skin in the game"" on these purchases and the lending standards keep getting tougher. You are better off if you have money saved in your name rather than against the balance on your loan. Yes you can't bankrupt these loans, but the money you repay on them doesn't go toward housing you or paying your bills on a rainy day. I went through the same feeling when I completed my MBA with $50k in debt, you want to pay it off as soon as possible. But you need to step away and realize that it was an investment in your future and your future is long, you need time to make a financial foundation for it. And you will feel a lot more empowered when you have money saved and you can make the decision for how you want to deploy it to work for you. (Ex. I could pay down my student loans with the balance I have in the bank, but I am going to use it to invest in myself and open my own business)."

negative: Money aside, if there is career growth I say yes.   I moved out to Maryland years ago for my first job as well, some of the suburbs are pretty nice.  Learn how to cook the basics. That is where you will save money.

negative: "> Where is the EVIDENCE that they're 'just as bad'?  Give me 2 hours of their broadcast and some time to sit down with you and point out the things, and I can show you in person.  Unfortunately I haven't found any well written studies which do that, and creating one myself would require a bit more time investment than I'm willing to volunteer. I'm not especially interested in saving the world, it just seems fair to shout ""hey you guys they're making the sky fall"" from time to time. Those of us capable of recognizing the enemy should make a minimal effort at least to point that enemy out to everyone else."

negative: "As the OP expressed their thought it seemed to me they were suggesting anyones (or rather anyone who is ""Rich"" however *that* is defined*) non-invested money be taxed at this high rate and that strikes me as hopelessly naive. You don't think they would leave the country or ""invest it"" in a savings account earning .05% (or most likely spread across many so it was FDIC insured)?   > I bet the rich would find something to do with that idle cash overnight if it was taxed at a 75% rate or so.    They were basically suggesting the US government sieze the savings of wealthy people.   The question of whether the highest effective tax rate **on income** should be raised is  a completely different discussion. Personally I favor a higher tax rate and some new tax brackets for the very highest earners. I don't really think it's necessarily *fair* in a progressive system to treat the rich as a ""piggy bank"" but it is what it is. They benefit the most so they are called to contribute the most.   I think I'd favor some kind of Alternative Minimum Tax for rich people so they had to pay a minimum of 30ish% of their income above some sort of cap (5 million per year? 100 million per year?) and capital gains  applied. This would close the Buffet loophole.   My biggest reason for this though is not because I don't think they *deserve* their money. It's because bottomless coffers basically guarantee that the legislation will be written for them and by them. There is always this tension between the poor and middle class that want more services and the upper class that wants to pay less taxes.   I am starting to get to the point where I think it might be better to have a smaller government (and less services) because they abuse their power (and our money) so much. ACTA, SOPA, NDAA, warrantless wiretaps, Afghanistan and Iraq wars, etc. I *do* like the idea of social safety nets but perhaps those should be more local.   Anyways, sorry for the wall of text."

negative: Just to add to @duffbeer703 comment, additionally, the cash value is NOT part of the death benefit. The policy is intended to grow the cash value to the point where it matches the death benefit and then it 'matures' and you get the cash. My point being, is that since they don't give you both, you are really transferring the reponsiblity from them to you over time, your savings (that you lose) becomes part of the death benefit and they supliment it with less and less over the years so that it would equal the death benefit. @duffbeer703 nailed it right on the head, buy term and invest the difference and once you've got your savings built, really the need for insurance isn't there any longer (if you've got 1/2 million saved, do you really need insurance?)


query: Can vet / veterinary bills be considered deductions (tax-deductible) for Income Tax purposes [Canada]?

positive: No. Medical bills for yourself or your human companions may be: Canada Revenue Seeing-eye dogs and the like also get special treatment Nice Doggie There are pet medical insurance policies; but as they are often priced like human policies, they might exclude your animal if it has a pre-existing condition. Good Luck Scott

positive: "In the US service animals are treated like durable medical equipment from a tax POV, and some expenses can be deducted. Likewise, expenses associated with working animals are business or hobby expenses than can be deducted to a certain extent.  But pets, no. Legally they are ""chattels"" -- property that can move. Generally speaking, you can't deduct the cost of maintaining your belongings."

negative: TaxTips.ca's Federal Tax Rates page has basic information about income tax in Canada, and it states: Canadian federal income tax is   calculated based on taxable income,   then non-refundable tax credits are   deducted to determine the net amount   payable.  For 2009, every taxpayer can   earn taxable income of $10,320 ($9,600   in 2008) before paying any federal   tax. [...] (emphasis mine) Of course there are also provincial taxes to consider, but generally each province has a basic personal exemption amount.  TaxTips.ca's page for Ontario rates lists $8,881 as the basic personal exemption in Ontario, for 2009.  Find other provinces here.

negative: "Federal taxes are generally lower in Canada.  Canada's top federal income tax rate is 29%; the US rate is 35% and will go to 39.6% when Bush tax cuts expire.  The healthcare surcharge will kick in in a few years, pushing the top bracket by a few more points and over 40%. State/provincial taxes are lower in the US.  You may end up in the 12% bracket in New York City or around 10% in California or other ""bad"" income-tax states.  But Alberta is considered a tax haven in Canada and has a 10% flat tax.  Ontario's top rate is about 11%, but there are surtaxes that can push the effective rate to about 17%. Investment income taxes: Canada wins, narrowly.  Income from capital gains counts as half, so if you're very rich and live in Ontario, your rate is about 23% and less than that in Alberta.  The only way to match or beat this deal in the US in the long term is to live in a no-income-tax state.  Dividends are taxed at rates somewhere between capital gains and ordinary income - not as good a deal as Bush's 15% rate on preferred dividends, but that 15% rate will probably expire soon. Sales taxes: US wins, but the gap is closing.  Canada has a national VAT-like tax, called GST and its rate came down from 7% to 5% when Harper became the Prime Minister.  Provinces have sales taxes on top of that, in the range of 7-8% (but Alberta has no sales tax).  Some provinces ""harmonized"" their sales taxes with the GST and charge a single rate, e.g. Ontario has a harmonized sales tax (HST) of 13% (5+8).  13% is of course a worse rate than the 6-8% charged by most states, but then some states and counties already charge 10% and the rates have been going up in each recession. Payroll taxes: much lower in Canada.  Canadian employees' CPP and EI deductions have a low threshold and top out at about $3,000.  Americans' 7.65% FICA rate applies to even $100K, resulting in a tax of $7,650. Property taxes: too dependent on the location, hard to tell. Tax benefits for retirement savings: Canada.  If you work in the US and don't have a 401(k), you get a really bad deal: your retirement is underfunded and you're stuck with a higher tax bill, because you can't get the deduction.  In Canada, if you don't have an RRSP at work, you take the money to the financial company of your choice, invest it there, and take the deduction on your taxes.  If you don't like the investment options in your 401(k), you're stuck with them.  If you don't like them in your RRSP, contribute the minimum to get the match and put the rest of the money into your individual RRSP; you still get the same deduction.  Annual 401(k) contribution limits are use-it-or-lose-it, while unused RRSP limits and deductions can be carried forward and used when you need to jump tax brackets.  Canada used to lack an answer to Roth IRAs, but the introduction of TFSAs took care of that. Mortgage interest deduction: US wins here as mortgage interest is not deductible in Canada. Marriage penalty: US wins.  Canadian tax returns are of single or married-filing-separately type.  So if you have one working spouse in the family or a big disparity between spouses' incomes, you can save money by filing a joint return.  But such option is not available in Canada (there are ways to transfer some income between spouses and fund spousal retirement accounts, but if the income disparity is big, that won't be enough). Higher education: cheaper in Canada. This is not a tax item, but it's a big expense for many families and something the government can do about with your tax dollars. To sum it up, you may face higher or lower or about the same taxes after moving from US to Canada, depending on your circumstances.  Another message here is that the high-tax, socialist, investment-unfriendly Canada is mostly a convenient myth."

negative: You don't have to wait.  If you sell your shares now, your gain can be considered a capital gain for income tax purposes. Unlike in the United States, Canada does not distinguish between short-term vs. long-term gains where you'd pay different rates on each type of gain.  Whether you buy and sell a stock within minutes or buy and sell over years, any gain you make on a stock can generally be considered a capital gain. I said generally because there is an exception:  If you are deemed by CRA to be trading professionally -- that is, if you make a living buying and selling stocks frequently -- then you could be considered doing day trading as a business and have your gains instead taxed as regular income (but you'd also be able to claim additional deductions.)  Anyway, as long as your primary source of income isn't from trading, this isn't likely to be a problem. Here are some good articles on these subjects:

negative: Nice idea, but you will have a potential problem. State lawmakers have already considered this option: I looked at this site: Saving for college because it include info for on all the plans. For Illinois it discuses income tax recapture. Effective January 1, 2007, rollovers from this plan to an out-of-state   program are included in Illinois taxable income to the extent of prior   Illinois deductions. Effective January 1, 2009, nonqualified   distributions from this plan are included in Illinois taxable income   to the extent of prior Illinois deductions. Most of the states have similar wording. When looking up the law the key word is recapture. The reason why there is no recapture provision at the federal level is that there is no tax deduction on contributions. The 10% penalty make it less likely that somebody would want to have nonqualified distributions. If a state gives a tax deduction in the year of the contribution they want to demand that tax deduction back if the funds are not used for educational purposes. Generally there are of course provisions for scholarships, death, and disability.

negative: "The bill proposed to ""Under existing law, employers may take tax deductions for the costs associated with moving jobs out of the country. The proposed legislation would have eliminated that, and used the resulting new revenue to fund a 20 percent tax credit for the costs companies run up ""insourcing"" labor back into the U.S."" From http://abcnews.go.com/m/blogEntry?id=16816660 as found by beermethestrength. I will explain this in an example below.   Lets use allen edmonds. I manufacture shoes and sell them in the US. The facts we will assume is Revenue or sales is $100. Manufacturing cost is $50. Tax rate is 10%. Therefore, Profit before tax is $100 -$50 = $50. Tax is $5. Net profit is $45.  However, suppose offshoring to Canada saves money. They say please and thank you at every opportunity and the positive work environment allows them to work faster. Correspondingly to make the same number of shoes our costs has decreased because we pay less for labour. The manufacturing cost decreases to $30. However, we incur costs to move such as severance payments to layoff contracted employees. (I promise to hire you and pay $1 a year for 2 years. I fire you at the end of the first year. To be fair, I pay you $1) However, it can be any legitimate expense under the sun. In this case we suppose this moving cost is $10. Revenue or sales is $100. Manufacturing cost is $30. Moving cost is $10. Tax rate is 10%. Profit before tax is $100 -$40 = $60. Tax is $6. Net profit is $54. Yay more jobs for Canadians.   However, the legislation would have changed this. It would have denied that moving expense if you were moving out of the country. Therefore, we cannot consider $10 worth of expenses for tax purposes. Therefore Revenue or sales is $100. Manufacturing cost is $30. Tax rate is 10%. Profit before tax for tax purposes is $100 - $30 = $70. Tax is $7. Net profit for tax purposes is $63. However, my accounting/net/real profit is $53. I must deduct the $10 associated with moving. The difference between the two scenarios is $1. In general our net profit changes by our moving cost * our tax rate.  There is no tax break associated with moving. In Canadian tax, any business expense in general can be deducted as long as it is legitimate and not specifically denied. I am uncertain but would assume US tax law is similar enough. Moving expenses in general are legitimate and not specifically denied and therefore can be deducted.  Offshoring and onshoring are seen as legitimate business activities as in general companies do things to increase profit. (forget about patriotism for the moment).  The bill was to make offshoring more expensive and therefore fewer companies would find offshoring profitable. However, republicans defeated this bill in congress. Most likely the house  For completeness let us examine what would happen when we onshore (bring jobs from canada to us :( ). In our example, silly unions demand unrealistically high wages and increase our cost of manufacturing to $50 again. We decide to move back to the US because if it is the same everywhere for the sake of silly national pride we move our jobs back to the US. We incur the same moving cost of $10. Therefore we have Revenue or sales is $100. Manufacturing cost is $50. Moving cost of $10. Tax rate is 10%. Profit before tax for tax purposes is $100 - $60 = $40. Tax is $4. However, we are given a 20% tax credit for moving expense. $10 * .2 = 2. The government only assess us tax of 2. Net profit is $38. Tax credits are a one time deal so profit in the future will be $100 -$50 - $5 = $45. Same as the first example.  insourcing = onshoring , outsourcing = offshoring for the purposes of this article. Not quite the same in real life."

negative: "Actually, the other answer isn't strictly correct.  It's an estimate, giving a lower bound that gets less accurate as income increases.  Consider: U.S. income tax is based on a progressive tax system where there are income bracket levels with increasing tax rates. Example: Given U.S. 2009 federal tax rates for an individual filing as ""single"": Imagine somebody making $100000.  Assuming no other credits, deductions, or taxes, then income tax based on the above brackets & rates would be calculated as follows: Meaning the average tax rate for the single individual earning $100,000 is 21.72%. However, a pre-tax deduction from that income actually comes off at the top marginal tax rate.  Consider the same calculation but with taxable income reduced to $99,000 instead (i.e. simulating a pre-tax $1000 deduction): That's a difference of $280, which is more than the $217.20 savings that would have been estimated if just using the average tax rate method. Consequently, when trying to determine how much money would be saved by a tax deduction, it makes better sense to estimate using the marginal tax rate, which in this case was 28%.  It gets a little trickier if the deduction crosses a bracket boundary.  (Left as an exercise to the reader :-) Finally, in the case of the deduction being discussed, it also looks like payroll FICA taxes paid by the employee (Social Security's 6.2%, and Medicare's 1.45%) would be avoided as well; so add that to the marginal tax rate savings. The surest way to know how much would be saved, though, would be to do one's income tax return calculation without the deduction, and then with, and compare the numbers.  Tax software can make this very easy to do."

negative: "A loan is not a taxable income. Neither is a gift. Loans are repaid with interest. The interest is taxable income to the lender, and may or may not be deductible to the borrower, depending on how the loan proceeds were used. Gifts are taxable to the donor (the person giving the gift) under the gift tax, they're not a taxable income to the recipient. Some gifts are exempt or excluded from gift tax (there's the annual exemption limit, lifetime exclusion which is correlated to the estate tax, various specific purpose gifts or transfers between spouses are exempt in general).  If you trade for something of equal value, is that considered income? Yes. Sale proceeds are taxable income, however your basis in the item sold is deductible from it. If you borrow a small amount of money for a short time, is that considered income? See above. Loan proceeds are not income. does the friend have to pay taxes when they get back their $10? No, repayment of the loan is not taxable income. Interest on it is. Do you have to pay taxes if you are paid back in a different format than originally paid? Form of payment doesn't matter. Barter trade doesn't affect the tax liability. The friend sold you lunches and you paid for them. The friend can deduct the cost of the lunches from the proceeds. What's left - is taxable income. Everything is translated to the functional currency at the fair market value at the time of the trade. you are required to pay taxes on the gross amount Very rarely taxes apply to gross income. Definitely not the US Federal Income taxes for individuals. An example of an exception would be the California LLC taxes. The State of California taxes LLCs under its jurisdiction on gross proceeds, regardless of the actual net income. This is very uncommon. However, the IRC (the US Federal Tax Code) is basically ""everything is taxable except what's not"", and the cost of generating income is one of the ""what's not"". That is why you can deduct the basis of the asset from your gross proceeds when you sell stuff and only pay taxes on the net difference."

negative: "You've asked a number of questions. I can answer a few. I've quoted your question before each answer.   What are the ins and outs of a foreigner like myself buying rental   property in Canada? This is a pretty broad question which can address location, finances, basic suggestions etc.  Here's some things to consider: Provincial considerations:  Some ins and outs will depend on what province you are considering and what area in that Province. If you plan on owning in Montreal, for example, that's in the province of Quebec and that means you (or someone) will need to be able to operate in the French language. There are other things that might be different from province to province. See stat info below. Canadian vs. US Dollar:  Now might be a great time to buy property in Canada since the Canada dollar is weak right now. To give you an idea, at a non-cash rate of 1.2846, a little over $76,000 US will get you over $100k Canadian. That's using the currency converter at rbcroyalbank.com.  Taxes for non-resident rental property owners:  According to the T4144 Income Tax Guide for Electing Under Section 216 – 2015: ""When you receive rental income from real or immovable property in Canada, the payer, such as the tenant or a property manager, has to withhold non-resident tax at the rate of 25% on the gross rental income paid or credited to you. The payer has to pay us the tax on or before the 15th day of the month following the month the rental income is paid or credited to you."" If you prefer to send a separate Canadian tax return, you can choose to elect under section 216 of the Income Tax Act. A benefit of this way is that ""electing under section 216 allows you to pay tax on your net Canadian-source rental income instead of on the gross amount. If the non-resident tax withheld by the payer is more than the amount of tax payable calculated on your section 216 return, [they] will refund the excess to you.""  You can find this guide at Canada Revenue's site: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tg/t4144/README.html Stats: A good place for stats is the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC).  So, if you are interesting in vacancy rates for example, you can see a table that will show you that the vacancy rate in Ontario is 2.3% and in British Columbia it's 1.5%.  However, in New Brunswick it's 8%. The rate for metropolitan areas across Canada is 2.8%.  If you want to see or download this table showing the vacancy rates by province and also by metropolitan areas, go to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation site http://www.cmhc.ca/housingmarketinformation/.  You can get all sorts of housing information, reports and market information there.  I've done well with Condos/Town-homes and would be interested in the   same thing over there. Is it pretty much all the same? See the stat site mentioned above to get market info about condos, etc. What are the down payment requirements? For non-owner occupied properties, the down payment is at least 20%. Update in response to comments about being double taxed: Regarding being taxed on income received from the property, if you claim the foreign tax credit you will not be double taxed. According to the IRS, ""The foreign tax credit intends to reduce the double tax burden that would otherwise arise when foreign source income is taxed by both the United States and the foreign country from which the income is derived.""  (from IRS Topic 856 - Foreign Tax Credit)   About property taxes: From my understanding, these would not be claimed for the foreign tax credit but can be deducted as business expenses. There are various exceptions and stipulations based on your circumstance, so you need to read Publication 856 - Foreign Tax Credit for Individuals.  Here's an excerpt: ""In most  cases,  only  foreign  income  taxes  qualify for the foreign tax credit. Other taxes, such as foreign real and personal property taxes, do not qualify.  But  you  may  be  able  to  deduct  these other  taxes  even  if  you  claim  the  foreign  tax credit for foreign income taxes. In most cases, you can deduct these other taxes  only  if  they  are  expenses incurred  in  a trade  or  business  or  in  the  production  of  income.  However,  you  can  deduct  foreign  real property taxes that are not trade or business expenses  as  an  itemized  deduction  on  Schedule A (Form 1040)."" Disclaimers:  Sources: IRS Topic 514 Foreign Tax Credit and Publication 856 Foreign Tax Credit for Individuals"

negative: If your deductions are higher than the standard deduction, you will be able to subtract property taxes from your income. In your example, that means that taxes are computed based on $95,000. In 2011, the standard deduction varies between $5,800 (single filer) and $11,600 (married filing jointly). Tax credits are subtracted from your tax obligation. The most common tax credit for most people is student loan interest. If you pay $500 in student loan interest, that sum is subtracted from your tax bill.

negative: In Canada, the majority of your taxes are remitted by the employer on your behalf after the employer deducts the calculated amount from your pay. Then when you file your income tax return you pay (or get reimbursed) the difference stemming from your particular social situation. Note that this is optional. The employer has to pay its own part of some deductions, but the employee can opt out from getting the standard amount of income tax deducted at source. It is his responsibility alone to pay for his taxes. So in this context, it's entirely possible to advertise an approximate net salary. Most of the accounting over here is done by way of accounting software, and those that support payroll go through a testing and acceptance phase for each revision to the tax tables, so the amount calculated is usually pretty exact (I got reimbursed 120$ last year).

negative: If you have a relatively stable income and deductions you can get a fairly good estimate using last year's tax bill. Suppose you paid $12000 of actual taxes last year and you are paid once a month.   If you plan to make a similar amount of money with similar deductions, you need each monthly paycheck to have $1000 of federal income taxes withheld.   I go to a paycheck calculator and find the withholding required to make sure I have that amount withheld every paycheck.

negative: "This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452069/state-local-tax-deductions-federal-taxes-trump-tax-reform-state-income-tax-real-estate-tax-california) reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot) ***** > The plan would eliminate the deductibility of state and local income taxes for federal tax purposes.  > Like the mortgage-interest deduction, which the Trump plan unfortunately keeps, the deduction for state and local taxes was intended to be a benefit to the middle class, i.e., the salt-of-the-earth voters who simultaneously are strongly in favor of an active welfare state and strongly disinclined to pay for it.  > Offsetting state income taxes encourages states to jack up their levies: Because some costs are passed on to the federal treasury, Sacramento can get $1 in state income-tax revenue at a real cost to California taxpayers of less than $1. That&#039;s back-door tax-code welfare for big-spending Democrats.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/73pca8/a_conservative_tax_hike/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~220318 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **state**^#1 **taxes**^#2 **federal**^#3 **tax**^#4 **income**^#5"

negative: According to HMRC's manual BIM42105, you can't deduct expenses of this kind when calculating your profits for corporation tax: No deduction is allowed for expenditure not incurred wholly and exclusively for trade purposes So at the least, the company will have to pay corporation tax on this donation at some point, assuming it ever makes any profits. There's also the risk that HMRC would say that what is really happening is that you are making a personal donation to this person and the company is giving you income to allow you to do it. In that case, you'd be liable to income tax and employees national insurance, and the company liable to employers national insurance. It should then be deductible from corporation tax, though.

negative: In the US there's no significant difference between what a business can deduct and what an individual can deduct. However, you can only deduct what is an expense to produce income. Businesses are allowed to write off salaries, but individuals can't   write off what they pay their gardener or maid (at least in the US) If you're a sole proprietor in the business of managing properties - you can definitely deduct payments to gardeners or maids. Business paying for a gardener on a private property not related to producing the income (like CEO's daughter's house) cannot deduct that expense for tax purposes (although it is still recorded in the business accounting books as an expense - with no tax benefit). Businesses are allowed to deduct utility expenses as overhead, individuals cannot Same thing exactly. I can deduct utility expenses for my rental property, but not for my primary residence. Food, shelter, clothing and medical care are fundamental human needs,   but we still pay for them with after-tax money, and pay additional   sales tax. Only interest (and not principal) on a mortgage is   deductible in the US, which is great for people who take out mortgages   (and helps banks get more business, I'm sure), but you're out of luck   if you pay cash for your house, or are renting. Sales taxes are deductible. You can deduct sales taxes you paid during the year if you itemize your deduction. You can chose - you either deduct the sales taxes or the State income taxes, whatever is more beneficial for you. BTW in many states food and medicine are exempt from sales tax. Medical expenses are deductible if they're significant compared to your total income. You can deduct medical expenses in excess of 10% of your AGI. With the ACA kicking in - I don't see how would people even get to that. If your AGI is low you get subsidies for insurance, and the insurance keeps your expenses capped. For self-employed and employed, insurance premiums are pre-tax (i.e.: not even added to your AGI). Principle for mortgage is not deductible because it is not an expense - it is equity. You own an asset, don't you? You do get the standard deduction, even if your itemized (real) deductions are less - business don't get that. You also get an exemption amount (for your basic living needs), which businesses don't get. You can argue about the amounts - but it is there. In some States (like California) renters get tax breaks for renting, depending on the AGI. CA renters credit is phasing out at AGI of about $60K, which is pretty high.

negative: Many countries have employers report their employees' salaries and withhold some money for income tax purposes (it's called “pay as you earn”, “withholding taxes” or taxing “at the source”). Often the system is designed in such a way that most people actually pay too much and can get money back at the end of the year. In that case, the salary you receive can certainly be considered a “net salary”. Depending on the tax system, individuals might need to file a separate tax returns to report any other income (investments, rents, whatever) or benefit from tax incentives but it can also be optional. If you live in such a country and your situation is simple enough that there are no applicable deductibles, you might simply choose to forgo it and let your employer take care of everything.

negative: This doesn't sound very legal to me. Real estate losses cannot generally be deducted unless you have other real estate income. So the only case when this would work is when that person has bunch of other buildings that do produce income, and he reduces that income, for tax purposes, by deducting the expenses/depreciation/taxes for the buildings that do not. However, depreciation doesn't really reduce taxes, only defers them to the sale. As mhoran_psprep said - all the rest of the expenses will be minimal.

negative: "HSAs as they exist today allow a person to contribute tax deductible money (like a traditional IRA) to a savings account.  The funds in the savings account can be spent tax free for qualified expenses.  If the money is invested it also grows tax free.  This means a discount on your cash health expenses of the amount you would have paid in taxes, which given your relative's income isn't likely to be very much. As HSAs exist today they must be paired to a qualified High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP).  Many plans have a deductible that meets or exceeds the level set by the regulations but many plans waive the deductible for things like X-Rays; waiving the deductible causes most ""high deductible"" plans to not qualify for HSA accounts. There are other qualified HSA expenses like Long Term Care (LTC) insurance premiums that can also be spent tax and penalty free from HSA funds. At age 60 with low income an HSA serves little purpose because the tax savings is so marginal and an HDHP is required.  That does not however mean that the scope of HSA availability should not be expanded.  Just because this is not a silver bullet for everyone does not mean it is of no use to anyone."

negative: There is no strict need to do that, you can consider yourself to be consulting, a 10% of your payment will be withheld and paid as tax by the company, you can deduct up to 60% of your income as expenses and pay tax on the rest (factoring the tax deducted at source). In another approach, you could register for service tax and charge service tax on your invoice and pay to the service tax department, the tax calculations are similar to above. It will be good if you speak to a chartered accountant and get more clarity. As for business card, you could print it with your name and qualification, there are no restrictions on that.

negative: To expand a little on what littleadv said, you can only deduct what something cost you. Even if you had done volunteer work for a charity as a sole prop you could only deduct your actual costs. If you paid an employee to do charity work or to learn something related to the business that would be deductible as a normal business expense.  Some common sense would show that if you could deduct something that didn't cost you anything (your time) you could deduct away all of your income and avoid paying taxes altogether. Back to your more nuanced question could 2 businesses you own bill each other for services? Yes, but you will still have to pay taxes for money earned under each of them. You will also need to be careful that the IRS does not construe the transactions as being done solely to lower your tax bill.

negative: Consider the individual who pays $1,000,000 in taxes.  His/her income must be substantial.  That is what one should aim for.  Investments for the most part, do not lower ones taxes.   In one of John Grisham's novels, tax shelters are being discussed.  Sorry, I do not remember which book.  The discussion goes something like this: There are a few investments which can lower your taxes.  Purchase a house.  Mortgage interest on your principle residence is deductible (if you itemize deductions).  If you don't itemize, focus on increasing income to the point where itemizing benefits you. In general, businesses have more deductions than individuals.  Own a small business. You (or your accountant) will discover many deductions.  Hint: the company should lease a car/truck, many meals are now deductible.  This is not the reason to own a business.

negative: Putting Chris's comment as an answer: It's your income, not your spouse's income. You can give her the money, but you'll still be paying tax on it To elaborate more - the general principle of income taxation is that income is taxed when received, and specific expenditures can be deducted. If you giving the money to your spouse is not one of this specific deductibles - then it is not deductible. Your income, nevertheless, is still taxed to you - as you're the one to receive it.

negative: "The $10,400 is in the question, in two pieces.  His employer withheld $8000, and her employer withheld $2400.  Thus they paid together $10,400 in income taxes, which are deductible if you itemize deductions and choose income taxes over sales taxes (you can deduct one or the other).  There's nothing ""standard"" about the amount, though it is standard to take the income tax deduction (almost always higher than sales tax)."

negative: Federal income tax refunds received during 2016 are not taxable income for 2016 (or any other year) on either the Federal or the State tax return. The State income tax refund for 2015 received during 2016 is not taxable income on the State tax return for 2016. It is taxable income on the Federal tax return for 2016 only to the extent that you received a tax benefit (reduction in Federal income tax due) from deducting State income tax as an Itemized Deduction on your 2015 Federal return. If you didn't deduct State income tax because you deducted State sales tax instead, then the State income tax refund is not taxable income on the Federal tax return.

negative: As far as I know, there is no direct equivalent. An IRA is subject to many rules.  Not only are there early withdrawal penalties, but the ability to deduct contributions to an IRA phases out with one's income level.  Qualified withdrawals from an IRA won't have penalties, but they will be taxed as income.  Contributions to a Roth IRA can be made post-tax and the resulting gains will be tax free, but they cannot be withdrawn early. Another tax-deductable investment is a 529 plan.  These can be withdrawn from at any time, but there is a penalty if the money is not used for educational purposes. A 401K or similar employer-sponsored fund is made with pre-tax dollars unless it is designated as a Roth 401K.  These plans also require money to be withdrawn specifically for retirement, with a 10% penalty for early withdrawal.  Qualifying withdrawals from a regular retirement plan are taxed as income, those from a Roth plan are not (as with an IRA). Money can be made harder to get at by investing in all of the types of funds you can invest in using an IRA through the same brokers under a different type of account, but the contribution will be made with post-tax, non-deductable dollars and the gains will be taxed.

negative: From what I understand this is what you can do : You need to raise an invoice to your brother's company in USA Your brother makes a payment into your Indian company's bank account using wire transfer straight into a bank account in your company's name. Your brother wont have to pay taxes on the money that he pays you against an invoice as it would be an expense and would not be considered as profit for tax purposes. Once you have the money you can then file your income tax returns after deducting your own expenses etc in India. I hope this helps.

negative: "How can I avoid this, so we are taxed as if we are making the $60k/yr that we want to receive?  You can't. In the US the income is taxed when received, not when used. If you receive 1M this year, taking out 60K doesn't mean the other 940K ""weren't received"". They were, and are taxable. Create a pension fund in the corporation, feed it all profits, and pay   out $60k/yr of ""pension"". I doubt that the corporation could deduct a   million a year in pension funding. You cannot do that. You can only deposit to a pension plan up to 100% of your salary, and no more than $50K total (maybe a little more this year, its adjusted to inflation). Buy a million dollars in ""business equipment"" of some sort each year   to get a deduction, then sell it over time to fund a $60k/yr salary. I   doubt such a vehicle exists. If there's no real business purpose, it will be disallowed and you'll be penalized. Your only purpose is tax avoidance, meaning you're trying to shift income using your business to avoid paying taxes - that's illegal. Do crazy Section 79 life insurance schemes to tax-defer the income.   The law caps this so I can only deduct < $100k of the $1 million   annually, and there are other problems with this approach.\ Yes. Wouldn't go there.  Added: From what I understand, this is a term life insurance plan sponsored by the employer for the employee. This is not a deferral of income, but rather a deduction: instead of paying your term life insurance with your own after tax money, your employer pays with their pre-tax. It has a limit of $50K per employee, and is only available for employees. There are non-discrimination limitations that may affect your ability to use it, but I don't see how it is at all helpful for you. It gives you a deduction, but its money spent, not money in your pocket. End added. Do some tax avoidance like Facebook does with its Double Irish trick,   storing the income in some foreign subsidiary and drawing $60k/yr in   salary to be taxed at $60k/yr rates. This is probably cost-prohibitive   for a $1MM/yr company. You're not Facebook. What works with a billion, will not work with a million. Keep in mind that you're a one-man business, things that huge corporations like Google or Facebook can get away with are a no-no for a sole-proprietor (even if incorporated). Bottom line you'll probably have to pay the taxes. Get a good tax professional to help you identify as much deductions as possible, and if you can plan income ahead - plan it better."

negative: If you know you will have a big bill, like braces. and you fully expect to hit the deductible then it can make sense. The deductible can trip some people up, because if they put too much into the limited purpose FSA and don't hit the deductible for the regular insurance policy, they can't get to all the money in the FSA. Because you have the ability to spend the potential money in the FSA before all the money has been contributed, it can allow you to make that payment for the braces in January. I did this the first year we had the HSA. I knew I needed to pay a dental bill early in the year. But the HSA would only have a few hundred dollars at that time, so I used the limited purpose FSA to be able to make that payment. This could also work if you spent a lot of money in the previous year. Because you have the ability to adjust how much money goes into the HSA each each pay period, this idea does keep the option open to fully fund the HSA if your finances improve. Regarding the deductible.  The law limits what you can use the limited purpose FSA for: dental and vision only. There is an exception. If you hit the deductible for the high deductible insurance policy, then you can use the funds in the limited purpose FSA for ANY medical reason.  When I did this a few years ago, I needed to send extensive paperwork to the company holding the funds before they would release the funds for dental. Once I sent them proof that I had met the deductible, then any medical expense after that date could use the FSA with minimal paperwork. If you fully fund the FSA beyond the cost of the braces, and then have a light year medical expense wise, you might not be able to spend all money in the FSA by the deadline. Regarding state taxes.  I saw no difference in my states (Virginia) treatment of the funds. The state taxable income number was exactly the same as the federal taxable income number. It did not treat the money in the FSA differently than the money in the HSA.

negative: You can always reduce the income by the direct expenses required to earn it, and figure out whether it is ultimately a net profit or loss.   The net profit is taxable income.  The loss may be tax deductible if the underlying thing is tax deductible.    For the book, the $50 revenue required a $100 expense, so that's a $50 net loss.  You don't owe any income tax since it's a loss.  You could take the loss as a tax deduction if you have a business trading books, or if buying the book would be tax deductible for some reason.  Note that in the latter case you can only deduct the $50 not the $100.  For the airline ticket, it is to compensate you for the losses you took as a result if the delayed flight. So you tally up the $22 meal you had in the airport waiting for news, the $110 on the motel room you rented or forfeited, any other way you can peg a cash value to any losses you took.  Total them up, again, a net loss is only deductible if the travel is already deductible. Note that if the actual expenses (book, flight) were tax deductible for some reason, the cash-back reduces the amount of your tax deduction, so it has the same effect as the sale/gift being taxable income.

negative: There are two significant drawbacks to this type of transfer. They were the reasons why I kept my American 401(k) as-is and started funding my Canadian RRSP from zero balance. 1. Taxes - a large chunk of your 401(k) will be lost to taxes. There is probably no way to transfer the funds without making a 401(k)/IRA withdrawal, which will incur the US federal tax and the 10% early-withdrawal penalty.  When the money went into the 401(k), you got a tax deduction in the US and the tax break is supposed be repaid later when you make a withdrawal (that's basically how tax deferral works).  It's unlikely that any country will let you take a deduction first and send the payback to a foreign country.  The withdrawal amount may also be taxable in Canada (Canadians generally pay taxes on their global income and that includes pensions and distributions from foreign retirement plans).  Foreign tax credit will apply of course, to eliminate double taxation, but it's of little help if your marginal Canadian tax rate is higher than your average US tax rate. 2. Expenses. Your RRSP will have to be invested in something and mutual fund management expenses are generally higher in Canada than in the US.  For example, my employer-sponsored RRSP has a Standard & Poor's stock index fund that charges 1.5% and that is considered low-cost.  It also offers a number of managed funds with expenses in excess of 2% that I simply ignore.  You can probably invest your American 401(k)/IRA in mutual funds more efficiently.

negative: I don't think there's much you can do. Losses from the sale of personal-use automobiles (used for pleasure, commuting, etc) are not deductible as capital losses.  See IRS Tax Topic 409, end of the first paragraph.  The expenses you incurred in owning and operating the car (insurance, fuel, maintenance, service plans, etc) are not deductible either. If you used it partly for business, then some of your expenses might be deductible; see IRS Tax Topic 510.  This includes depreciation (decline in value), but only according to a standard schedule; you don't generally just get to deduct the difference between your buying and selling price.  Also, you'd need to have records to verify your business use.  But anyway, these deductions would apply (or not) regardless of whether you sell the car. You don't get your sales tax refunded when you resell the vehicle.  That's why it's a sales tax, not a value-added tax.  Note, however, that if you do sell it, the sales tax on this new transaction will be the buyer's responsibility, not yours. You do have the option on your federal income tax return to deduct the state sales tax you paid when you bought the car; in fact, you can deduct all the sales taxes you paid in that year.  (If you have already filed your taxes for that year, you can go back and amend them.)  However, this takes the place of your state income tax deduction for the year; you can't deduct both.  See Tax Topic 503.  So this is only useful if your sales taxes for that year exceeded the state income tax you paid in that year.  Also, note that state taxes are not deductible on your state income tax return.  Again, this deduction applies whether you sell the car or not.

negative: The taxes that are deducted from you paycheck are estimated from the expected annual income you receive from the employer. In the same way, the employer will deduct from that expected annual income the tax deductions you would get for the number of dependents you specify. Hence your net income will be lower, your annual tax obligation also, which can than be calculated down to the period of your paycheck.

negative: You are faced with a dilemma. If you use a 529 plan to fund your education, the short timeline of a few years will limit your returns that are tax free. Most people who use a 529 plan either purchase years of tuition via lump sum, when the child is young; or they  put aside money on a regular basis that will grow tax deferred/tax free. Some states do give a tax break when the contribution is made by a state taxpayer into a plan run by the state. The long term plans generally use a risk profile that starts off heavily weighted in stock when the child is young, and becomes more fixed income as the child reaches their high school years. The idea is to protect the fund from big losses when there is no time to recover. If you choose the plan with the least risk the issue is that the amount of gains that are being protected from federal tax is small. If you pick a more aggressive plan the risk is that the losses could be larger than the state tax savings. Look at some of the other tax breaks for tuition to see if you qualify Credits An education credit helps with the cost of higher education by   reducing the amount of tax owed on your tax return. If the credit   reduces your tax to less than zero, you may get a refund. There are   two education credits available: the American Opportunity Tax Credit   and the Lifetime Learning Credit. Who Can Claim an Education Credit? There are additional rules for each credit, but you must meet all   three of the following for either credit: If you’re eligible to claim the lifetime learning credit and are also   eligible to claim the American opportunity credit for the same student   in the same year, you can choose to claim either credit, but not both.   You can't claim the AOTC if you were a nonresident alien for any part   of the tax year unless you elect to be treated as a resident alien for   federal tax purposes. For more information about AOTC and foreign   students, visit American Opportunity Tax Credit - Information for   Foreign Students. Deductions Tuition and Fees Deduction You may be able to deduct qualified education expenses paid during the   year for yourself, your spouse or your dependent. You cannot claim   this deduction if your filing status is married filing separately or   if another person can claim an exemption for you as a dependent on his   or her tax return. The qualified expenses must be for higher   education. The tuition and fees deduction can reduce the amount of your income   subject to tax by up to $4,000. This deduction, reported on Form 8917,   Tuition and Fees Deduction, is taken as an adjustment to income. This   means you can claim this deduction even if you do not itemize   deductions on Schedule A (Form 1040). This deduction may be beneficial   to you if, for example, you cannot take the lifetime learning credit   because your income is too high. You may be able to take one of the education credits for your   education expenses instead of a tuition and fees deduction. You can   choose the one that will give you the lower tax.