Just getting started and not sure where to go from here
There's a lot going on here. I'd be making the maximum ($5500 for a single person under 50) contribution to the Roth IRA each year. Not too late to put in for 2014 before Wednesday, 4/15.  Not out of your income, but from the T Rowe Price account. As long as you have earned income, you can make an IRA deposit up to the limit, 5500, or up to that income. The money itself can come from other funds. Just explain to Dad, you're turning the money into a long term retirement account. I doubt that will trouble him.  Aside from that, too much will change when you are out of school. At 18, it's a matter of learning to budget, save what you can, don't get into debt for stupid things. (Stupid, not as I would judge, but as the 25 year old you will judge.)
"Whether you do decide to go with a tax advisor or not, be sure to do some research on your own. When we moved to the US about 5 years ago, I did find the taxes here pretty complicated and confusing.  I went ahead and read up all different tax documents and did some calculations of my own before hiring a CPA (at that point, I just wanted a second opinion to make sure I got the calculations right). However, when the office of the CPA was finished with my taxes, I found they had made a mistake! When I went back to their office to point it out, the lady just shrugged, corrected her numbers on the form and said ""You seem to know a lot about this stuff already. Why are you here?"" I swore to never use them again - not this particular CPA at least. Now, I am not saying all CPAs are the same - some of them are pretty darn good at their job and know what they are doing. All I am saying is it helps to be prepared and know some basic stuff. Just don't go in all blind.  After all, they are also humans prone to mistakes and your taxes are your liability in the end.  My suggestion is to start with a good tool that supports tax filing for non-residents. Most of them provide a step-by-step QA based tool. As you go through the steps, Google each question you don't understand. It may take more time than hiring a tax advisor directly but in the end it will all be worth it." "Note - this is a complicated topic. I've read the rules multiple times and I'm still not sure I understand them perfectly. So please take this with a pinch of salt and read the rules for yourself. The time(s) at which a test is done against the LTA are known as a ""Benefit Crystallization Event"" (BCE). There are 13 of these (!) - they're numbered 1-9 with the addition of some extras numbered 5A-D. However, the most important ones for those with defined contribution pensions are: Broadly, the idea is that a BCE occurs when you start taking money out of your pension, and when you reach age 75. Each time one happens, the amount you are taking out (""crystallizing"") gets compared against the LTA and a certain percentage of your LTA gets designated as being used. Crystallising doesn't necessarily mean you actually receive the money immediately, just that some of your money is switched into a mode where you can start receiving it in different ways. The rules are designed to avoid double counting, so broadly anything that was taken off your LTA won't be taken off a second time. The cumulative use of your LTA is tracked as a percentage rather than an absolute amount, to take account of any changes in the LTA between the different times you crystallise money. For example if you crystallise £100K when the LTA is £1mn, that's 10% of your LTA gone. If later on the LTA has risen to £1.1mn and you take out £110K, that's another 10%. Once you hit 100%, you start paying a LTA charge on any excess. The really simple path here is if you just get an annuity with your entire pot, before hitting age 75 (and you don't make any further pension contributions after). Then only BCE 4 applies: your pension pot, all of which is being used to buy the annuity, is compared with the LTA. After this point your entire pension pot is considered to be crystallized, so no more BCEs will apply - the tests at age 75 only apply if you still have money that you haven't taken out or used to buy an annuity. The annuity payments themselves will be subject to income tax at your normal rate at the time you receive them, i.e. 0%, 20%, 40% or 45% depending on how much other income you have. In reality most people would want to take 25% of their pot as a lump sum at the same time as buying an annuity, given that it's tax-free if you're under the LTA. At this point BCE 6 applies in addition to BCE 4, but again the overall effect of the test is pretty simple, look at the total pension pot (lump sum + cost of annuity), and if it's under the LTA you're fine. Again, at this point no more BCEs will apply as all the money is considered to have been fully distributed. If you only use part of the money for an annuity/lump sum, then only that part of the money is compared against the LTA, and the rest stays in your pension and will be compared later. The 25% limit for a tax-free lump sum applies to the total you are taking out at that point: if you have £200K and are taking out £100K, you can take out £25K as a tax-free lump sum and use £75K for the annuity. The other £100K stays in your pension. Many people see annuity rates as very low and will want to take on more risk (and reward) by using ""Drawdown"" for at least part of their pension. Essentially, you can designate part of your pension for drawdown, and at that point BCE 1 applies to the money you designate. Once designated, you can start drawing the money out as income, which will be taxed at your normal income tax rate at the time you receive it. Again, you can take 25% as a lump sum at this point which will be subject to BCE 6. There's also an alternative route where you put everything into ""flexi-access drawdown"" without taking any lump sum immediately, and then as you actually withdraw income, 25% is tax-free and the rest is taxed as income. The overall effect is the same, but it gives you more control over when you get the tax-free bit. However, because with drawdown you can actually leave the money in your pension and growing tax-free, there's a further test against the LTA at age 75 under BCE 5A. To avoid double-counting (""prevention of overlap""), the amount left in the drawdown fund at that point is reduced by whatever was previously tested against BCE 1. So if you put £150K into drawdown initially, and it's grown to £200K by age 75, then another £50K will crystallise under BCE 5A. I think that if you put £150K into drawdown initially and it grows by £50K, but you take that out as income so that only £150K (or less) remains at age 75, then the amount crystallising under BCE 5A is nil. Also, when money is in drawdown, you can choose to use it to buy an annuity. BCE 4 is applied at this point (if before age 75), but as with BCE 5A, this is reduced by anything that was previously crystallised under BCE 1. If you only use some of it to buy an annuity, the reduction is pro-rataed, e.g. if you started out with £150K moved into drawdown, and later it has grown to £200K and you use £100K to buy an annuity, then the reduction is £75K so £25K is considered to have crystallised under BCE 4. Once you reach age 75, as well as any money that's still in drawdown, anything you haven't yet crystallised at all gets tested against the LTA under BCE 5B. Broadly, once you go over the LTA, the charges are simple: There's never any explanation given for these two rates, but I think it's all based on trying to at least cancel out the benefit you got from using your pension, on the assumption that: So with the 25% charge + 20% income tax, if you take out £100, you'll end up with £75 gross income, so £60 net income - just the same as if you'd originally paid 40% tax. (This ignores the effect of investment growth, but if you would have saved the £60 in an ISA, the end result is the same: if you had growth of say 50% over the time the money was in your pension, it'll be the same effect if you had £100 growing to £150 and now received 60% of it, or if you had £60 growing to £90 untaxed in an ISA.) The 55% lump sum charge is in case you are paying 40% tax when you take it out, to make sure that it's not a more attractive option than the 25%+income tax: if you have £100, either you get £45 tax free via a lump sum, or you get £75 gross and hence £45 net. I haven't covered lots of cases here: defined benefit pensions. Roughly, when you start receiving the pension, 20x the initial income from the pension is deemed to crystallise under BCE 2 and any lump sum you receive crystallises under BCE 6. In the former case, you could end up having to pay the LTA charge with money you haven't actually got yet, and you can ask the pension administrator to instead reduce your pension to pay it. However, there are lots of special cases for defined benefit pensions, mostly for historical reasons, so you should make sure you check with your pension administrator about this. if you die before age 75, at which point the LTA test is applied via either BCE 5C/5D, or BCE 7. After paying the LTA charge if any, your dependents or whoever else you leave it to gets the remainder tax-free. transferring overseas (BCE 8). ""scheme pensions"" under BCE 2 and BCE 3 (I think these are relatively uncommon) some corner cases covered by regulations (BCE 9)" "To begin, I'm not sure you understand what COL refers to.  It's what you spend, not what you bring in.  Let's say Bob makes 60k in some midwest town, but spends 30k for living.  If his salary and his cost of living both increase at the same rate, let's say they both double, this means Bob now makes 120k but spends 60k.  He now saves double what he would have before.  That 30k extra saved is 30k extra saved.  His purchasing power has now gone greatly up, especially in respect to housing outside of an expensive area like the valley.  For one, let me clear this up - SF, the city itself, is expensive.  I'm talking more generally about the bay area, and silicon valley as a whole.  Most tech jobs from the big tech companies that we think of as ""the bay"" are not in SF.  they are in mountain view, Sunnyvale, and that area.  So this might explain some of our disagreements.  Most people who work for large tech companies understand they have a decision to make - live in the city proper, pay a lot more than the greater valley, use transit into work (all of the giants have regular shuttles in), but get to love a more ""hip"" life, or be more conservative in the valley, where rental prices are on par with NYC.  In talking to a lot of people who work for the big companies, they know this.  Younger folks who want to live the city life pay the premium, but by far and wide they live outside of it, where it is closer to work, and they take the rail up for weekends out with buddies.  I'm still not sure where you are getting a doubling of the COL in the valley versus outside.  Yes, housing as a single item is going to be a person's largest expense.  But all the rest of their expenses are not going to see a similar increase.  It's also important to remember that saving 10% of 60 v 10% of 120 is significantly different.  Lots of people take jobs in the valley, are able to save vastly larger amounts of cash, and then leave.    In my calculations I evaluated the COL markup to be ~30% for the valley for a 200k job.  That is, I spend maybe 50k of my earning on all living expenses in the Midwest (in a downtown, nice area), and would expect I'd pay about 70k for the same standard in the valley.  But I'd be saving a shitton more.  I've done the math, I'm not here to argue with someone who just googled SF cost of living searching for the answers I want.  I've talked to actual people out there.  I appreciate your passion for this, but your 100% increase in COL estimate is simply wrong.  But then again, it depends on how you live and where you live in your current situation.  I live in a large midwest city, actually in the city itself." "From the perspective of an investor and someone in high-tech during that period, here is my take:  A few high tech companies had made it big (Apple, Microsoft, Dell) and a lot of people were sitting around bemoaning the fact that we all should have realized that computers were going to be huge and invested early in those companies. We all convinced ourselves that we knew it was going to happen (whether we did or not), but for some reason we didn't put our money where our mouth was and now we were grumpy because we could be millionaires already. In the meantime the whole Internet thing transitioned from being something that only nerds and academics used to a new paradigm for computing. Many of us reasoned that we weren't going to be suckers twice and this time we were getting on that boat before it left for money-land.  So it became fashionable to invest in Internet stocks. Everyone was doing it. It was guaranteed to come up in any conversation at parties or with friends at work. So with all this investment money out there for the Internet's ""next big thing"" naturally lots of companies popped up to take advantage of the easy money. It got to the point where brokers and Venture capital firms were beating the bushes LOOKING for companies to throw money at and often they didn't scrutinize these company's business plans very well and/or bought into insane growth projections. Frankly, most of the business plans amounted to ""We may not make any money off our users, but if we get enough people to sign up that HAS to be valuable, right?""  Problem #2 was that most of these companies weren't run by proven business types, but that didn't matter. It worked for those rag-tag kids at Google, Apple and Microsoft right? Well-heeled business types who know how to build a sustainable business model are so gauche in the new ""Internet Economy"".  Also, the implicit agenda of most of these new entrepreneurs is (1) Get enough funding to make the company big enough go public while keeping enough equity to get rich when it does; (2) Buy a Ferrari; (3) Repeat with another company.   Now these investors weren't stupid. They knew what was going on and that most of these Internet companies weren't going to be around in a decade. Everyone was just playing the momentum and planned to get out when they saw ""the signal"" that the whole house of cards was going to fall. At the time we always talked about the fact that these investments were totally playing with monopoly money, but it was addictive. During the peak, at least on paper, my brokerage account was earning more money for me than my day job.  The problem was, that it was all kind of a pyramid scheme. These dot com companies needed a continual supply of new investment because most of them were operating at a loss and some didn't even have a mechanism to make a profit at all, at least not a realistic one. A buddy of mine, for example worked for an IPO bound company that made a freaking web based contact management system. They didn't charge yet, but they would one day turn on the meter and all of those thousands of customers who signed up for a free account would naturally start paying for something the company was actively devaluing by giving it away for free. This company raised more than $100M in venture capital.  So eventually it started to get harder for these companies to continue to raise new money to pay operational costs without showing some kind of ROI. That is, the tried-and-true model for valuing a company started to seep back in and these companies had to admit that the CEO had no clothes. So without money to continue paying for expensive developers and marketing, these companies started to go under. When a few of the big names tumbled, everyone saw that as ""the signal"" and it was a race to the bank. The rest is history." I appreciate all the responses, but again, I have NO experience or education in the field.  I haven't started any major related college courses yet and do not have a job in the field. I am looking for beginner, introduction level reading material to start reading up on to start understanding the field before I even start school. I'm from Canada, so your going to have to take that into account when reading this, as things are done a little differently here.    I wouldn't go the accounting route, as it's going to require more education on top of this. Id there is a program that focuses more on the management of finances that would be ideal. There are many mid to entry level positions that deal with the flow of cash throughout the company. From there you work your ass off and see where it can get you. Sometimes they go as far as hiring someone with no experience, but a certificate and a some educational knowledge will go a long ways in helping you.   You probably could, if you went to the right sources, gain similar knowledge by learning things yourself. But it won't look nearly as appealing to potential employers. Hope this helps.   Also, it blows my mind, the difference in cost of tuition. I spent 12k over 3 years(just finished). Those kids in Montreal have no idea how good they have it. My reading list for someone just getting into personal finance would include the following I know it's a bunch but I'm trying to cover a few specific things. Yeah it's a bit of reading, but lets face it, nobody is going to care as much about your money as YOU do, and at the very least this kind of knowledge can help fend off a 'shark attack' by someone trying to sell you something not because it's best for you, but because it earns them a fat commission check. Once you've covered those, you have a good foundation, and oh lord there's so many other good books that you could read to help understand more about money, markets etc..  Personally I'd say hit this list, and just about anything on it, is worth your time to read. I've used publishers websites where I could find them, and Amazon otherwise. "This might sound harsh, but the first thing I would suggest is to stop making excuses.  I wasn't able to continue due to pressure from college and family The college I went to was horrible. Employers can very easily hire foreign work-force for   very cheap; for example as a citizen if I work $10 an hour, they can   get someone from outside to work for $5 per hour There's no guarantee that the project will succeed. I cannot really work and at the same time develop software on my free   time.  Despite my failures in the past, I was not the main person that's   responsible for those failures. Even if all of this is true, it's not helping you move forward and it seems to be getting in the way of creating a good action plan and motivating yourself to succeed. If you believe (based on past experiences) that you are doomed to fail, then you are indeed doomed to fail. You need to take a step back and re-evaluate your current circumstances and what you can do to reach your goals. You have a couple of things working in your favor here. It's great that you are debt free. That already puts you ahead of a lot of your peers.  You have the option of living with your parents. Presumably for no rent, or at least much lower rent than you would have to pay if you move out. This is worth literally thousands of $/£/€ for every year you stay. Now, onto your questions: 1) Should I quit regular programming for a normal job because I never monetized programming so I can move out of my parents' home? Are you being paid for this ""regular programming""? If so, are you being paid more than minimum wage? If not, it's perfectly acceptable to consider alternative ways to spend your time and generate income. However, this doesn't have to be at the expense of living with your parents. Have you thought about getting a new or second job while still living with them? If you absolutely must move out of your parent's home, consider renting a room in a house with other people to keep the rent costs to a minimum. That way, even if your main job is low paying, you should be able to put aside some money each month for future endeavors.  2) Should I monetize programming and gamble with the future? What does this mean? Are you thinking you'll write a mobile app and sell thousands of copies for 99¢ each? That would indeed be a big gamble, but maybe that's not what you meant, so you'll need to clarify. 3) Would it be wise to essentially quit programming for the sake of a minimum wage job? I'm not sure how this is different from question 1. So I'll reiterate what I said there - moving out is going to be expensive. You can still do it, but you're asking on a Personal Finance site where the focus is usually how to minimize living costs and maximize income. Without knowing more about where you live (employment opportunities, cost of living) the default recommendation is usually to save money by staying in your parents house. TLDR: Don't focus on anyone else. They are not preventing you from getting the job you want. Look at your own skills and qualifications (not just programming, consider all of your abilities). What are you good at? Who might need those skills? What is the cost of reaching those people (commute time, moving nearer)? What is the reward? If the reward exceeds the cost, start approaching those people. Show them what you can do."