Sample Budget 1 -- Example Only: Fill & Download for Free

Last week I was travelling in Guwahati express and saw several incidents which reveal their marketing tactics.Incident #1 Lady selling Black chana usli in train: She doesn’t shout, Goes to each seat and places on some empty seat, Give out sample to everyone who see’s her.Most of the people who tastes it likes to buy and if someone asks them the price, she replies 20Rs and if they turn down. She has a alternative for them by saying half pack only 10Rs.With this kind of providing samples, budget friendly and convincing mentality anyone will surely succeed in business.Incident #2 : Tea/Coffee vendors coming back to back, Have you noticed them? They come to same compartment back to back. They know some people buy after seeing others drinking, They shout loudly and make people wake up from bed, although they have only Tea they shout coffee, green tea, ginger tea just to make your attention.When I personally spoke to him, His words were like..“I just do 6–7 hours work a day and mostly our work is to carry Tea pots in the morning, water bottles and breakfast in between.We should just roam without taking rest, because if I take rest then other vendor will make money in my absence.Like in villages we do not have a rooster to wake up, So we have to shout and make people wake up and drink our tea.More we walk and more the speed we do, We can make more business.Although we sell normal tea, we have to describe it differently like ‘Garma Garam chai’ , ’Masala chai’ then only people tend to buy”Personally I learnt Patience, Restless, Product description to make the good business.Although these things happen around us everyday, If we inherit those qualities in us then surely success prevails.Edit 1: Removed the lady photo for justifying comments.Edit 2: Even JIO followed the same tactics, giving free for some time and then charging you.

That depends on several factors. Here is a sample budget. I’m using somewhat conservative estimates, but not to the point of ridiculousness (you won’t have to forage for edible plants on this budget, or live under a bridge):I think that living a normal lifestyle, but on the Spartan side, you would probably need about ¥160,000 per month to live. I think the government recognizes this, because currently in Tokyo, the minimum wage is ¥985 per hour, which works out to about ¥170,000 per month. The Immigration Office recognizes this as well, and will probably not grant you a work visa for anything less than ¥170,000 or ¥180,000 a month.For someone making ¥250,000 per month:¥50,000 per month: Taxes (income tax, resident tax, National Pension, National Health Insurance, etc.) These are basically unavoidable, and you must pay them. Some people don’t pay them (for example, an English teacher never signing up for and paying into National Pension) but this is extremely risky; you could be punished, for example, your visa might not be renewed. Or you could get away with it for ten years, but then be rejected for Permanent Residency.¥50,000 per month: Rent This is highly variable. If you insist on living in a nice place (i.e. large) or in downtown Tokyo, you’ll probably pay much more. If you are okay with living 17 minutes from the station in southwestern Tokyo, about an hour from downtown, in an old concrete building, you might get as low as ~¥30,000. Scroll down and I will explain how I have gotten through the past 2 1/2 years rent-free, and how you can, too.¥30,000 per month: Food (this assumes lots of home cooking with maybe one meal per day eaten out at a cheap restaurant) This is an EXTREMELY VARIABLE EXPENSE. For me, it is the #1 culprit for overspending! In this country, theoretically, you could avoid starvation on just ¥10,000 per month if you bought a 10 kilogram bag of imported rice from an Indian or Nepalese mart, a bunch of tofu, cabbage, and maybe some cooking oil and soy sauce to add flavor. However, that would get really old really fast. On the other end of the spectrum, you have “foodies” who spend ¥20,000 for a meal, and those people could easily spend ¥100,000 or more per month on food. Drinking will exacerbate this; not only does the alcohol cost money, but then you get the “drunk munchies.”¥20,000: Utility bills (gas, electric, water, phone) Personally, I pay about ¥3,000 a month for electricity (I am very careful with my electricity), about the same amount for gas, my water is very cheap (¥1,500 a month, because my building has a special deal) and then I do all my telecommunications through au (20 GB data plan which I tether to my PC), which probably costs about ¥8,000 or ¥9,000 per month. Because I have tethering, there is no need to pay for broadband Internet. au literally provides all of my telecom services.¥10,000: Transportation (most employers pay it, but some don’t, or your train is delayed and you need to pay for a taxi to get to work on time and your employer doesn’t reimburse for that, and there will also be times when you need to go to the Immigration Office, etc. and then you’ll have to pay out-of-pocket)Keep in mind that this does not cover entertainment, going out, etc.Is ¥250,000 a month enough to live on? Well…If you’re young and very financially disciplined (rarely going to izakaya, karaoke, or night clubs), then you can save about ¥90,000 a month. That’s ¥1.08 million per year saved. If you invest this, then you won’t be rich anytime soon, but you’ll probably be all right.If you’re married with kids, then life is going to be very difficult for you unless your spouse is making more than you. According to studies in the US and UK, raising a child costs approximately $20,000 per year. This is almost your entire salary. Basically both parents would need to work full-time to support one child, and even then, they wouldn’t be living in luxury. If you’re trying to support two kids, good luck with that. Your spouse had better be working. If he or she isn’t, then your whole family is really going to suffer.As you age, your medical expenses are going to go WAY up, at least if you’re the average person. If you’re 19 years old, you probably spend about $0 on medical care. In the US, the average elderly person spends over $12,000 a year on medical care. I’m sure this is probably lower in Japan, but still. What I’m trying to say here is PREPARE FOR THE FUTURE. Because when you’re 70 years old, ¥250,000 is not going to be enough anymore, in all likelihood, unless you have significant savings, because you’ll be paying for lots of medications, doctor’s visits, surgeries, etc., and heaven forbid, a nursing home, which costs tens of thousands of dollars per year. They say that a typical retirement takes about $1 million (~¥100 million). If you save $10,000 per year from your salary, the only way to make it to $1 million is either to win some kind of lottery, or to invest!Now, earlier in the post, I wrote about how I haven’t paid rent in two and a half years. Here is how I did it. I bought a small condominium for ¥1,900,000 in southwestern Tokyo. Seriously, I’m not joking. It’s tiny (only 15.40 m², or about 161 square feet). This enabled me to stop living at an expensive “gaijin house” (because it’s harder for foreigners to find places to rent, so many of us have to live in expensive gaijin houses). Now, instead of paying about ¥50,000 for a room with no bathroom at a gaijin house, I just pay ¥8,200 in condo fees, and ~¥30,000 a year in property tax. Basically I’m saving about ¥500,000 a year on rent. This enables me to save more money than in the budget above. I highly recommend that any foreigner planning to live in Japan long-term (I’ve been here for 8 1/2 years) do the same thing. I just regret not doing it earlier!Don’t believe me about the cheap condos? See the following ad from Suumo.jp:

Not sure why the answers here appear needlessly fearful by sampling campaign rhetoric and projecting it to actions in the future. If campaign rhetoric strongly correlated with ultimate action, then Barack Obama’s policies would have been unambiguous successes and Hillary Clinton might not have struggled.But forming a chorus definitely does run the risk of an erroneous priorities effect.So to avoid that, let’s make the assumption that RnD budgets correlate strongly with ‘progress in Science’, and look at that data first: Total Federal budget allocated for RnD by year and party controlling WH -The data comes from Am. Assoc. for Advancement of Science - Historical Trends in Federal R&D from 1976 to current. The data is broken down to three categories - Defense, Non-Defense and Total RnD budget. The total R&D budget gets funneled to different departments including NSF, NASA, DoE, DoD, NIH, among others. The defense category is not monolithic and it does not mean ‘military RnD’ - For example, DoE manages FFRDCs such as Sandia, LBNL, ORNL, LANL and DoC manages NIST, all of which have massive fundamental science programs. The red/blue imply the years when Republicans/Democrats held the WH. Note the four perturbations in the data that shifted the budgets off their upwards trends with some significance -1980 recession,1991 recession,9/11,and 2007–2009 recession.Also note that while RnD budgets have been increasing in absolute value, they have been declining relative to total federal budget[1]since 1966. Finally note that Federal budget contributions to Universities/College and Industry RnD have been increasing since 1967[2]. Both of these irrespective of leadership policies/affiliations.Now let’s look at RnD budgets by departments.NIHNSFNASA/DOEDODSince many here seem to be interested in NSF, the following link shows some appropriation/allocation against request data - https://dellweb.bfa.nsf.gov/NSFRqstAppropHist/NSFRequestsandAppropriationsHistory.pdfAll together:So based on those plots and by simple visual inspection,I fail to see negative shifts in total RnD budgets correlate with any specific party policy or agenda. Negative shifts generally correlate with external, global factors.DOD expenditure is frequently used to combat recession and an economic tool. Note that DoD always has the lion’s share.Republican policy almost always increases the defense spend, but NIH and NSF funding also increases as well.If we look at the % change yoy in total RnD budgets, image below, the largest negative swings were caused around 1981, 1991, 2008 - Recessionary circumstances, so very logical. Even then that’s an approximately -10% swing.I am sure there are other points that you may note but I don’t need them to make my point.How bad is the outcome of the US 2016 presidential election for science?Based on the AAAS information, it seems that singular personalities of presidents do not affect budgets much. But global economic conditions certainly do.‘Science’ is a pretty broad term - It includes stem cell therapy, climate science as well as synthetic materials or Terahertz research. I am not sure if somebody’s policy choice that affects a niche field and delays progress in it for a few years, somehow magically makes it bad for the whole of ‘science’.So all fears about how ‘2016 Presidential election is bad for science’ are based on speculation about what the President-Elect may or may not do. What seems to be clear on 11/12/2016 is that the transition team is paying attention to useful advice. Markets are happy that they are not pushing absolutely bonkers sentiments out in public any more. Their current stance on ACA shows that they are willing to consider arguments. ̶T̶h̶e̶ ̶b̶u̶z̶z̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶c̶a̶b̶i̶n̶e̶t̶ ̶d̶e̶m̶o̶n̶s̶t̶r̶a̶t̶e̶s̶ ̶s̶o̶m̶e̶ ̶f̶a̶i̶r̶l̶y̶ ̶s̶e̶r̶i̶o̶u̶s̶ ̶p̶e̶o̶p̶l̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶u̶n̶d̶e̶r̶s̶t̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶i̶m̶p̶o̶r̶t̶a̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶i̶r̶ ̶j̶o̶b̶s̶.̶[edit dated 11/16/2016]RnD budgets are pride-points in policy. Wins in RnD are used to justify decisions and claim greatness. So for something really, really scary to happen, the RnD budget will need to shrink by, let’s say, -20% for it to be remarkably bad for science. This completely flies against the face of documented trends (and these trends are not based on ‘surveys’ where missing or false data is a possibility). Also, this contraction needs to occur (1) only as a result of policy, (2) not through exposure to global markets, (3) in the next four years, for it to be caused by 2016 elections. We are stacking the odds with that one.I find it highly unlikely that a president, any president, will arbitrarily slash RnD budgets by more than 10%.If I do not react emotionally to the whole funkiness of the last few months, I fail to see how anyone can truly justify their catastrophic world views. Sure some specific niche areas will suffer, maybe we will accelerate rates of change in weather patterns. But many others may benefit.I am an immigrant. Republican policies supported my PhD with the DoE, Democrat led sequestration cut DoD funding, affected my work with IARPA. I have experienced what I think is racial nonsense at the hands of strangers and authorities multiple times. I am worried. Yes. We have all heard some very ugly rhetoric and indefensible talk in the last few days. I agree. Maybe I am only writing this given my contrarian streak when all other answer here portray a very negative outlook.But I like to think I am an optimist. I like to think that most ugliness in rhetoric is more an outcome of Lotka Volterra limit cycles and lossy encoding in communications than outright malice. That I can still invoke Hanlon’s razor.So let’s just be clear that, in the worst case, 2016 election may only bode ill for specific research programs, and that progress in science overall should not be very different from the last few years.Past is after all the best prelude we can get without a magic crystal ball.[This is a personal answer. I don’t do that. So I will delete it in a few days.]Footnotes[1] Image on aaas.org[2] Image on aaas.org