Mush, If I were to inherit $100,000. I'd invest almost all of it - maybe have a little fun with some of it, in a way that would be a good memorial to the one from whom I inherited. As I have no debt, currently. I won't go into debt for consumer stuff, daily issues of living: I wait till I can pay cash for stuff that I use up now. I prefer also to pay cash for a car, and get older cars, usually at $3,000. - 4,000. or less. The last one, costing $2,700., operated for me for over 8 years - cost me substantial amounts for repairs toward the end, more in total than I'd paid to buy it. But I drove it for over 110,000 miles. When I ask an auto salesperson whether s/he can give me 100,000 miles for about $6,000., they just look at me, sniff, and say, "No way!". Ian in B.C. Given your offer from your employers, one could scarcely turn it down. And for folks who have a stay-at-home spouse, and who have a pension plan themselves, a spousal RRSP makes good sense, in order to develop a double income stream after retirement. I just said that I don't like them for myself. An RRSP, or a similar type of investment as preparation for retirement, should be in core investments, solid stuff that'll do well over the years, despite some ups and downs along the road. I have some solid stocks that I bought somewhere around 30 years ago ... with money on which I'd already paid the tax. They've grown well in value, over the long term - and I didn't get all bent out of shape when their value went down by about 20% or so over a short term, for they'd done well before, and I expected them to do well later: usually better than average for a while after there's been a substantial drop. On such stocks as some of our major banks, pipeline companies, oil and gas and mining shares (the biggie, long-term ones), Geo. Weston, Power Corp. or subsidiaries, e.g. Investors' Group, GreatWest Life, or other major companies, I'm not worried that they may go out of business. Tobacco and booze, if having them doesn't bother you for moral reasons. I suggest that you check David Stanley's articles in "Canadian MoneySaver" on the Canadian equivalent of picking the "Dogs of the Dow", which he has written about for the past ten years, and back-tested for a number of years before that, usually reporting in the July/August issue what he (supposedly) bought at the end of May, as that was the time at which the TSE 35 was set up, several years ago. Then it was the largest 60 on the TSE, now the largest 40. He ranks those 40 stocks of the largest Canadian companies in order of the rate of dividend that they pay, from the highest down. Then he picks the 10 that pay the highest rate of dividend and buys an equal dollar amount of each. Despite some loss years, he's made a nice rate of return in about 7 or 8 of those 10 years, usually 10% or more total, comprised of dividends of about 3% and current capital gain ... or better. One year he was up 40%. There's a sub-set where one buys the 5 paying the highest dividend rate, and another that omits the one paying the highest dividend (as a company possibly in trouble, and possibly about to cut the dividend rate), and takes a double load of the one paying the second highest rate of dividend. In a number of years, this choice has turned out the best performance. I don't mind borrowing some to invest in such companies: if I use stocks worth $10,000. as collateral, the bank will lend me no more than $5,000. If I borrow the full $5,000. and the value of the collateral drops, say 20%, to $8,000., I get a call from the bank telling me that they want $2,000. more collateral ... or $1,000. cash to reduce the loan amount ... *today* (or at the latest, tomorrow). When I worked as a financial advisor, I told my clients that I wanted them to be in a position so that they *never* got such a margin call. I don't want any such myself (have never had one - but I've seldom used the borrowing strategy), so I borrow quite a bit less than the full amount that the bank is willing to lend. And I use stock of several companies, so that if one takes a heavy hit, my total isn't reduced too much. If I borrow, say $4,000. and give the stocks that I buy to the bank as additional collateral, they have somewhat less than $14,000. collateral, which means that they're willing to lend up to about $7,000. If the stocks take a hit of 30%, and it's doubtful if those heavy dividend payers would, even if the market as a whole went down 30%, that's a drop so that my total collateral would be under $10,000. But the bank would be willing to lend me something under $5,000. in those circumstances ... and I only owe them $4,000. You may have heard that the Canadian market has been going down for the last few months? About 3/4 of the stocks that Stanley picked in May this year are higher now than they were then. I can give you current particulars if you wish - which you can calculate for yourself if you check July/August 2006 "Canadian MoneySaver" and check current prices. Can give the record over the past 10 years, if you want them. When I receive dividends on Canadian stocks, I get a tax credit that means that I pay tax of peanuts on them, and use some of the income from the stocks that I own as well as those that I bought with the borrowed money to pay the interest on the loan - which currently, on my fully secured line of credit, would cost me 6%. If I can borrow at 6% that's fully deductible and buy stocks that earn about 3% now, taxed at a low rate, and use some of the dividends from stocks that I owned previously to pay the interest, I end up with little tax liability. Also, as the interest payment is deductible, I end up paying almost no income tax on that current income. Further, I make at least 2% or so annually on inflation (and some of us figure that the actual rate is higher than the 2% or so that the gov't. publicizes). When I pay interest only on the loan as I go along, the $10,000. that I might have borrowed 15 years ago would have bought a nice car - not now. But all that I'm required to pay the bank is the amount that I borrowed - $10,000. But it'll buy a lot less now than it would have, then. I've had a long-term time horizon, over the years - and continue to do so, even though I'm crowding 80. Thankful to be in good physical health - don't think that I've taken a pill in 30 years at least. Same for the mental component ... I hope. Have a great week, what's left of it. ole joyful

Hello, I stumbled across this forum while looking for some gardening information. I have lived in Playas de Rosarito (Rosarito Beach) in Baja California since 1986. From what I am reading, there are a lot of misconceptions regarding Mexico. Yes, there are currently problems with the "Narco Wars" and the border cities are experiencing more crime due to so many Mexican nationals being deported from the US. The "Narco Wars" are not something that Mexicans worry about in their daily life. Most of the persons getting knocked off are other bad guys. The average person is not being shot in the street. On the other hand, the US deported Mexicans, many who are criminals, are having an effect on life here along the border. We are experiencing more home burglaries; car thefts (which there were very few here until the late 90Âs); and, the occasional assault. Our police chiefs have a hard life as they are out to clean up the Narcos and the newly arrived criminals. Some of the chiefs get killed! Still, our crime rate here is well below that of San Diego, Los Angeles or any other medium to large size US city. We, who live here full-time, adjust our life to fact that this is the third world. What does that mean? We stay away from "crazy" tourist joints; make the communities where we live "hard targets" so that the petty thieves and burglars stay away from us; and, we heed the State Department advice of not driving around in the wee hours of the morning. The majority of visitors that have problems in Mexico make their own problems. They give the cops bribes instead of paying tickets at the station; they get drunk, disorderly and set themselves up for robbery or shakedowns; they do things that people living in third world countries would never do and because of their actions, these visitors experience problems. Before traveling from the first world to the third world, people need to know the difference between these worlds. ThatÂs how one stays safe. You are familiar with the rules in the US. A lot of them work the same here. People in the US that go to bars in rowdy areas and get drunk and disorderly get into fights and are sometimes rolled! People in the US experience burglaries; narco shootouts; gang drive-bys; dead people turning up in trunks of cars and bodies buried along the highway. They have school shootouts; postal employees going berserk and lots of other things. I donÂt know about you, but I donÂt frequent rowdy areas or bars in them; I donÂt get drunk; donÂt pay bribes to corrupt cops; stay out of narco or gang areas and try not to do things that might cause me to wind up dead in a car trunk or buried in a shallow grave off the road. The justice system here leaves a lot to be desired. Yes, the police can be corrupt. The district attorneys are mostly inept. On the other hand, if you get into difficulty on the street, people will respond to your cry for help. They donÂt just look out the window, they turn out in force! There are trade-offs. You make them every day in the states. We make them here in Mexico. Drive-by narco shootings affect us just about as much as drive-by shootings affect you in your cities. Burglaries and assaults bother us more than they bother most medium and big city dwellers in the states. We haven't been used to them. Prior to the past 7 years, most burglaries in my community were those that happened to unoccupied "weekender" houses that tend to be grouped together by the beach. Oddly, these folks never seem to put alarms into their houses. The pluses to living and/or retiring in Mexico are: 1. The tight knit communities; Mexican, American or mixed, you get to choose. 2. The slower pace of life in the majority of the country. Compared to most areas of Mexico, cities in the states are like clocks with their spring wound too tight. 3. Lower cost of living, although, the border cities are experiencing an upward push in prices. 4. Magnificent places to visit throughout the whole country. 5. If you live in the northern border region of Mexico, you can drive over the border and you have access to everything American.. 6. Most areas in Mexico are a gardenerÂs dream! 7. The Mexicans are friendly, gracious and have big hearts so long as you arenÂt an "ugly American" type of person. My point is that Mexico is by far a safer place for most people coming from any medium or large US city. Look at the Los Angeles newspapers; then look at the Tijuana newspapers; you will find that you are by far safer in Tijuana than L.A. DonÂt get caught up in the hype about Mexico that is printed in the US newspapers. I read US newspapers; watch US satellite TV; and, if I were to believe all the hype in the news about the US, I would be scared to death to set foot there. Read your newspapers and look at what you see from the viewpoint of a foreigner that might want to retire in the US. It would be scary, wouldnÂt it? I would be afraid to put my grandkid in school as he could be blown away by another student with an AK-47, a scenario that you wouldnÂt see here. If you are looking to retire down here, be discerning! DonÂt leave your brain at the border as many do. DonÂt flash your money; be overbearing; or, put people down because they donÂt have your financial wherewithal or education. Take the time to see how things are done down here. DonÂt believe what other "retirees" tell you about visas, bank trusts, rules, law and customs or confiscation of property. Most of them donÂt know much about any of that. If you rely on them and donÂt do your homework, you wonÂt find out that they donÂt know what they are talking about until it is too late to keep you out of problems you shouldnÂt be in to begin with. One case in point is Punta Banda in Ensenada, Baja California. The Americans blame everything regarding this problem on corrupt Mexicans. The problem was with the Americans. If they had done a little investigation, they would have easily found out that the land was in litigation. I donÂt know about you, but I wouldnÂt buy land in any country that was in litigation. See what I mean about some people leaving their brains at the border. I have lived outside the US for most of my 56 years. During that time I have lived in several countries. You can live well and be happy in most any country. Some are more difficult than others. Mexico is one of the easiest places in the world for Americans and Canadians to live in. Come down; check it out and enjoy. Now, back to gardening!

time for this to drop down

I just have to believe those answering the OP are already in Mexico and don't want any more Norte Americanos to emmigrate. We lived there for 9 months about 2 years ago. No killings, no abductions, and all the services one is used to up here. Yes you can buy property in Mexico. The state insurance is about $30/person, and you can get personal health insurance very cheaply compared to the US. Dr. visits are so inexpensive that most of us just pay and forget it. We did live in the Chapala area, and there are many US and Canadian citizens there, so most of the natives speak passable English. Our next door neighbor was a Scot who played the bagpipes, so you never know. The border towns and Mexico city, some of the southern mountain states are questionable as to your absolute safety, but except for the border towns I wouldn't take any place off the table. Now I do have to say that Mexico is not for everyone. I personally felt like I had come home. It is like the 50's with shade tree mechanics, radios on, cervasas being consumed. I have to say my husband hated it, so like I said previously, not for everyone.