How to negotiate when you have something to give back?
NEVER combine the negotiations for trade-in of an old car and purchase of a new one (and/or financing), if you can avoid doing so. Dealers are very good at trading off one against the other to increase their total profit, and it's harder for you to walk away when you have to discard the whole thing. These are separate transactions, each of which can be done with other parties.  Treat them as such. "I don't think that there is a generic answer that will apply to this question across all goods.  The answer depends on how the related businesses work, how much insight you have into the true value of the goods, and probably other things.  Your car example is a good one that shows multiple options - There are dealers who will buy as a single transaction, sell as a single transaction, or do a simultaneous sell with trade-in.  I had a hot tub once, on the other hand, where I could find people who would do a trade-in, but there was no dealer who would just buy my used tub.  There's not much parallel between the car and the tub because the options available are very different. To the extent that there is a generic answer, I generally agree with the point in @keshlam's answer about trying to avoid entrapment, but I take a slightly different view.  If you want to get your best deal, you need to have an idea going into the process of what you want in net and keep focused on meeting your goal. If for some reason, it's convenient for the dealer to ""move money around"" between the new car and the trade-in, I'm ok with that as long as I'm getting what I want out of the deal.  If possible, I prefer to deal with both transactions at once because it's simpler.  At the same time, I'm willing to remove the trade-in from the deal if I'm not getting what I want. (Threatening to do so can also give you some information about where the dealer really puts the value between the new car and trade-in since, if you threaten to pull the trade-in, the price on the car will probably change in response.)"
"This is all well and good, but sometimes you just run into an intractable manager.  There are plenty of managers out there who are both cheap and are generally resistant to budging on negotiations.  In those cases, your ""4th best negotiation tip"" is to have a best alternative to the job in your pocket." There is nothing fair / unfair in such deals. It is an art than a science.  what kind of things should be considered, to work out what would be a fair percentage stake A true fair value is; take the current valuation of the company [This can be difficult if it is small and does not maintain proper records]. Divide by number of shares, that is the value of share and you should 20K worth of such shares. But then there is risk premium. You are taking a risk that an small start-up may do exceedingly well ... or it may close off. This risk premium is what is negotiated. It depends on how desperate the owner of the small company is; who all are interested in this specific deal ... if you want 30% share; someone else is ready to offer 20K for 15% of share. Or there is no one willing to lend 20K as they don't believe it will make money ... and the owner is desperate, you may even get 50%. Here's another way that I look at it:  Say you and me were 50-50 partners in a small business. Suppose we wanted to expand our business but that needed money. Someone (let's call him Warren) has the money we need & hence in return for the money we offer Warren an equal stake in the business.  i.e. All three of us own 33% stake now. For both you and me our stake reduced from  50% that it was before Warren's entry to only 33% now.  While that reduction in our share may seem at first sight a bad deal for us, we both agreed to give Warren his share consciously not out of altruism but because it made business sense to helps us expand.  Ergo, what matters is not just your share of the pie but the size of the pie itself! And hence dilution of stake can make sense under certain circumstances.  Two small points: (a) This doesn't  in any way show the dilution must make sense. Only that it can sometimes make sense (b) Of course, in the case of a large corporation they do not need your personal approval for the dilution. But hey, neither do they ask you when they buy a new plant or start a new product. The most important lesson is never lend money to friends, unless you are willing to forget the lent amount, if the need arises to save your friendship. Money and relations/friendship is a dangerous cocktail. Your friend may assume, as you are his friend he may get lenient treatment while treating the money. And if you harangue about the money your friendship may suffer. So be careful while lending money to friends. If you make up a contract, your friend may ask why, if he isn't reasonable, as you are his friend. From personal experience, I forget about the lent money but jot it down somewhere. And when I am repaid I strike it off. I never discuss about the money or bring it up. People don't like to be reminded by a friend that they owe them money.  But refusing also isn't a viable option either. You probably have to take a middle path. "SO has observed a lot of irresponsible spending from a parent, which has scarred SO for life OK, so we've got fear... SO is not very financially savvy and has very little idea about how much we earn  ...and ignorance.   You are entirely correct to worry about the conversation. Fear plus ignorance equals disastrous conversations. I manage our finances. Apparently your SO wishes to have input on the management of your finances without understanding them. It strikes me that this serves neither of you well. I would note that it is exceedingly difficult to rationally argue someone out of a position that they arrived at through irrational fear and ignorance. So I wouldn't start by having a conversation about charitable giving at all. Rather, I would start by addressing the ignorance, because that's the easy one.  how high up we are in terms of being in the top y% of households by income Income is irrelevant to the fearful; income can vanish with debts remaining. If your SO is not earning much of that income then SO's future financial security is dependent on the whims of another, which has already turned out badly once for SO.  Focusing on raw income is the wrong way to go; focusing on an abstraction like percentile is even more irrelevant. The figures to focus on are not income and percentile, but rather net worth and change in net worth over time.  Income $300K, expenses $350K eventually leads to poverty if you lack net worth, even if you are in the 1% of income earners. Open up with ""how much do you think we earn?"" Playing rhetorical games with ignorant people seems both risky and perhaps unethical to me, and it seems unlikely to engender trust. I would approach this situation by first removing the ignorance, rather than attempting to take advantage of it for rhetorical purposes.  I would also institute a policy that ignorant people don't get a say. If SO wants to abrogate financial responsibility to you, then SO should accept your decisions without question. If SO wants to have a say in your joint financial life then SO has a responsibility to make recommendations based on both facts and feelings, not just feelings. So, how to remove this ignorance? This will take some doing, but not much. Go through your records and account for: From that you can compute your net worth. Then go back a few years and account for: From this you can show the effect of your past prudent decisions on your net worth. There should be no percentages. There should be no math more complicated than adding and subtracting, and it should be very clear what adds and substracts to what.  People who are financially savvy are extremely intimidated by jargon. If some of your increase in net worth came from a realized capital gain less taxes do not say ""realized capital gain less taxes"" on your summary document. There should be no ""depreciation"" or ""cost basis"" or anything even vaguely like that. Even ""assets"" and ""liabilities"" are too jargonish. ""Possessions"" and ""debts"" are more easily understood. I'm thinking something like: My SO is financially savvy and still I do this about twice a year; it's helpful for both of us to have a quick summary of what's coming in, what's going out, and what we've got. Once the ignorance is gone, then start working on the fear. It sounds like the fear comes from a betrayal of trust, so it's not just enough to be trustworthy, you've got to consistently appear trustworthy. A great way to do that is to keep doing what I already suggested: on a regular, ongoing basis inform SO of how you are doing financially. When SO sees that net worth is consistently improving over time, that you are not one bad decision away from poverty, the fear should diminish. Expect this to take a long time." "Advice from a long-time flipper You negotiate price based on four factors and none of these are set in stone: How much you love the house.  Is this house a 100 out of 100 for you or a 85 or a 75.  How much have you compromised. What is the likelihood that you will find a house that will make you just as happy or at least close.  You might have a house that is a 95 out of 100 but there are five other houses that you rated between 93-95.   What is your timeframe.  Know that playing hardball takes longer and can knock you out of the game sometimes and takes a little while to find a new game. What is the relative housing market.  Zillow and other such sites are crap.  Yes the give you a generalized feel for a community but their estimates are off sometimes by 30-40%.  Other factors like street/noise/updates to house/ and so on are huge factors.  You will have to really navigate the area and look for very comparable houses that have recently sold.  Then use average housing movements to extrapolate your future houses cost. As a buyer you have two jobs.  Buy the house you want and manage your agent.  Your agent wants you to buy a house as soon as possible and to increase their reputation.  Those are their only two factors of working.   By you offering closer to the asking price they are able to get their sales as quick as possible.  Also other agents will love working with them.  In fact your agent is selling you on the home and the price.  Agents hardly worry about you paying too much - as most buyers oversell the deal they get on their home.  Admitting that you paid too much for your house is more of an admission of ignorance of yourself, compared to agent incompetency. If you decide to low-ball the owner, your agent spends more time with you and possibly reduces their reputation with the selling agent.  So it is common for agents to tell you that you should not offer a low price as you will insult the owner. My advice.  Unless the home is truly one of a kind for the market offering anything within 20% of the asking price is DEFINITELY within range.  I have offered 40% less.  If a house is asking too much and has been on the market for 8 months there is no way I am going in with an offer of even 15% lower.  That leaves you no room.   What you do? First think about how much you think this house could sell for in the next 3 months.  In your example let's say 80K based on conservative comps.  Then take the most you would actually pay for it.  Let's say 75K.  70K is about as high of an opening offer I would go.   Do NOT tell your agent your true breaking points.  If you tell your agent that you would go to 75K on the house.  Then that is what their negotiations will start at.  Remember they want the sale to happen as soon as possible.  Very likely the other agent - especially if they know each other - will ask if how flexible you are going to be.  Then next thing you know your agent calls you back and says would you be willing to go 77K or the owner is firm at 80K. Do not give up your position.  You should never forecast to your agent what your next bid or offer would be for the house.  Never get into scenarios or future counters.   So you offer 70K.  If your agent asks you how firm that is?  ""Very firm"".  If your agent doesn't want to take the offer to them, ""Thank you for being my agent, but I am going to be working with someone that represents what I want.""   If the owner says ""You are done too me cheapskate.""  Well that's how it goes.  If the owner stays firm at asking or lowers - then you can come up if you feel comfortable doing so.  But understand what your goal is.  Is it to get a house or to get a good deal on a house?  Mine was always to get a good deal on a house.  So I might offer 72K next.  If they didn't budge, I am out.  If they moved down I went from there.   Easy Summary The fact is if they aren't willing to negotiate with you enough it always ends the same.  You give them your take-it-or-leave-it offer.  You tell your agent that if he/she comes back with one penny over it comes from their commission (god I have said this 100 times in my life and it is the best negotiation tactic you have with your agent).  The owner says yes or no and it is over." Give all your money as well as your budget requirements to someone you really trust. Tell them to give you ONLY what your budget allows. As long as both of you take this seriously, this method will be very effective. The standard approach is to reach an agreement and put it in writing. What you agree upon is up to you, but in the US if you want to avoid gift taxes larger loans need to be properly documented and must charge at least a certain minimal interest rate. (Or at least you must declare and be taxed upon that minimal income even if you don't actually charge it. Last I looked, the federal requirement was somewhere under 0.3%, so this isn't usually an issue. There may also be state rules.) When doing business with friends, treat it as business first, friendship second. Otherwise you risk losing both money and friendship. Regarding what rate to charge: That is something you two have to negotiate, based on how much the borrower needs the money, how much lending the money puts the lender at risk, how generous each is feeling, etc. Sorry, but there is no one-size-fits-all answer here. What I charge (or insist on paying to) my brother might be different from what I charge my cousin, or a co-worker, or best friend, or... If both parties think it's fair, it's fair. If you can't reach an agreement, of course, the loan doesn't happen. In the US, if it's a large donation to a tax-exempt organization (401c3 or equivalent), you may want to consider giving appreciated equities (stocks, bonds, mutual fund shares which are now worth more than you paid for them).  You get to claim the deduction's value at the time you transfer it to their account, and you avoid capital gains tax.  They would pay the capital-gains tax when they redeem it for cash... but if exempt, they get the full value and the tax is completely avoided.  Effectively,  your donation costs you less for the same impact.  It does take a bit of work to coordinate this with the receiving organization, and there may be brokerage fees, so it probably isn't worth doing for small sums.)Transfers within the same brokerage house may avoid those feee.) So again, you should talk to the charity about what's best. But for larger donations, where larger probably starts at a few thou, it can save you a nice chunk of change. Since no one else mentioned it, there are sometimes amazing deals that require being the first person to take advantage of them. I'm not talking about black Friday sales, I'm talking about the woman who decided to sell the Porsche (she had bought for her cheating husband) for $1000. You might not run into those types of deals often, but having liquid investments will allow you to take advantage of them instead of kicking yourself. I just bought some real estate with some of my emergency fund that needed several months before I could properly finance it due to some legal issues with the deed that needed to go through court because there was a deceased person on the title. I will make far more on the deal when it's done than I ever could have made with that money invested in the market. "If you and your parents both put up money to buy a house or anything else, what share each of you owns would be a subject for negotiation and agreement between you. To the best of my knowledge, there is no law that says ""if person X pays the down payment and person Y pays the monthly payments, than X owns 40% and Y owns 60%"" or any other specific numbers. Parents often give their children money to help with a down payment on a house or a car with the understanding that this is a gift and the child still owns 100% of the item. Other times they are unwilling or unable to just give the money and want some stake in exchange. In the case of a house or a car, there's a title that identifies the owner, and legally the owner is the person or people named on the title. I'd suggest that if you want to have split ownership, like if your parents are saying that they'll help with the down payment but they want to get that money back when you sell or some such, that you come up with a written agreement saying who owns what percentage and you both sign it. If there was a dispute -- if you never had an agreement about what share each owned and now you're selling the house and you're arguing over how much of the money each of you should get, or your parents want you to sell the house so they can get their money back but you don't want to sell, or whatever -- ultimately a court would decide. Presumably the judge would consider how much you had each paid in, but he might also consider who's been paying property taxes, how much work each has done to maintain the place, etc. It's better to have a written and signed agreement, something that everyone involved is satisfied with and where you all know exactly what you're agreeing to, rather than having a nasty surprise when a judge says no, you're not getting what you were assuming you were getting." I find that when I have to justify why I want something to someone else, I eliminate impulse buys because I have to think about it enough to explain to someone else why it is desirable. Simply going through that process in my own head in advance of a conversation to justify it I talk myself out of a lot of purchases. I'm married, so I have these conversations with my wife. She is very supportive of me buying things that I want if they will bring value. If I wasn't married and couldn't control my spending, I'd find a good friend or relative that I trust, and I would create a trust with me as the primary beneficiary, and I would appoint a trustee who was willing to sign off on any purchase that I wanted to make after justifying it to them. If I had no friends or relatives that I trusted in that role, I'd hire a financial adviser to fill the same role. Contractually I would want to be able to terminate the arrangement if it was not working, but that would mean sacrificing the legal fees to alter the trust and appoint a new trustee. In terms of preserving good relationships one approach is to charge a nominal rate of interest. maybe a few percent of the total and agree a time when it should be paid back. This may actually make them feel better about borrowing them money, especially, especially if it is something like business loan or buying a house or car.  If they need the money for a real crisis and they have no clear strategy for paying it back then it may just be better all around if you make it clear that it is a gift.  What you don't want to do is set up a situation where you are creating unnecessary problems down the road and that will very much depend on your individual relationship and how seriously you take the loan.  Here it is important that you are completely open and honest about the arrangement so take the time to make sure that both parties understand exactly what they expect from each other. "You mention that ""A great friend and couple's family"" which makes me think this is a couple.   For gift tax concerns, you can give a couple 2 x the gift tax exemption ($28,000 in 2015).  Your example of $22k would fit in this amount. To give this money anonymously, I know that people have reached out to a pastor in the area who will deliver an envelope with the gift and not disclose the source. Talking to a pastor who has done this, he said the call came out of the blue and he was happy to be able to help." "There is the price they want and the price you pay. Everything is negotiable when its a service (always possible, but usually harder with actual ""goods""). You should always haggle and price match your vendors. You can also try going to different vendors and not telling them its for a wedding and see if there really is a price difference. For example, call up a florist and say you need X, Y, and Z for a corporate banquet or for a special event for which you cannot give the details. If you then tell them its actually a wedding, and they blindly raise it without a good justification, move on. That said, they jack up the price because they know most people will says ""it's my wedding"", ""it's once in a lifetime"", ""it's MY special day"", etc.... The same is true about diamonds, their price does not reflect the actual supply and demand ratio, just the perception that has been created. However, as mentioned in some of the comments above, the service provided at a wedding may be different or more involved than just a normal dinner The more important issue is ensuring there are no back fees, no hidden fees, and you have well written, well reviewed contracts. For example, we know a couple whose caterer added a mandatory 20% gratuity, regardless of the service which was provided. Most venues or restaurants will not be making the bar a lose-leader, but they will charge for other things.  You can also save money by buying used or looking on ebay for prices closer to wholesale for the product. I think a good analogy to this is the Recent Time Magazine article on the price of healthcare - it costs a lot because its a small market and its harder to navigate, and most are not experienced shoppers in the area or don't have control over the individual item costs."