A forest will choke out a thicket, I often recomend that fruit and nut trees be planted on purpose, so that we lock up carbon and produce food for ourselves, and chocke out the brush plants that are unpleasent to walk through. When you go on a hike along a tail it seems that you are always either bordered by clearing/lawn or by a thicket, but once you break through that thicket you can useually travle quite quickly and easily and have plenty of space to move about. The main reasonfor removing trees and brush historicly wasn't to make things more pleasent, it was to open up land for agricultural use. with a field we can grow staple cerial grains, or legumes, or use it as pasture for animals, while some trees may provide seasonal food for some critters it takes alot of work to survive off of them year round (and trust me when I say thing, willow does not taste that good) . Our modenr day lawns were not contrived from thin air, you need to look at were they came from to understand how they fit in. Lawns are popular mainly in the south (sure, lots of people like them, but in the south they are sick for them) the south had a large portion of its caucasian inhabitants come from scotland (the southern drawl is very closely related to the scots accent) in schotland they have huge green field that are kept down to a few inches all summer long, this is because there is alot of rain and people raise sheep. Now, in the south there isn't as much water in the summer, and there aren't as many sheep, but people still liked the look of home so a lawn with mowers and irrigation is what they came up with.

And the government, having racked up huge debts, doesn't want to pay high rates of interest on those loans, so keeps interest rates low. In Canada, that currently low interest income is taxed at the highest rate. Until six years ago, dividend income on Canadian stocks was taxed at a lower rate, and since then even lower still ... and current dividend rates on a substantial number of stocks is higher than one earns as inteerest. If the number of dollars invested can't shrink ... it can't grow, either. So one must put part of current earnings with the principal in order to maintain purchasing power. What's left is what one gets on which to live. ole joyful

Hi Joyful, In the US you always pay both the pension fund manager as well as the mutual fund. However, our pension fund charges only .012%. The average US pension fund administration charges 1.25%. In the funds available to DH, there are a few funds with 1% or 1-1/2% fees but most are in the .75% or lower range. I agree with you that international exposure is critical these days. Our foreign exposure is low (to my way of thinking) at 22% total right now (DH's portfolio is 20% foreign invested but my smaller portfolio is invested 100% foreign fund). I do expect a pullback, however, which is why I took some profits and parked it in cash. I expect to reinvest before the end of the year, dividing it between domestic and foreign. We usually aim for around 28-30% foreign exposure total. Because our total asset portfolio is relatively modest, we wouldn't reach sufficient breakpoints even with a discount brokerage to be able to buy at NAV (net asset value, for those who are reading this discussion and are unfamiliar with the abbreviation), let alone waiving trading commissions. My ex-boss, the CFP, was very familiar with our pension fund (he has several clients who are also covered under it) and his advice to me was to leave our portfolio with the pension fund even after DH retires (he can take it out and rollover to another brokerage or advisor if he wishes); the quality of the funds and aggregate cost efficiencies can't be beaten. Now, if we decide to sell our house (it isn't elderly- or disabled-friendly, unfortunately), that frees up a huge chunk of money which we can use to play with. But even so, I fear I'm more of a mutual-fund gal. There's very few stocks I feel strongly about (although when IBM went down to $25 during the dot-com bust I couldn't believe it). I'm more focused on business trends and corporate finance in a general historical environment. Because of the estate planning we've done, it's not necessary for us to draw on our portfolio unless we need some 'mad money'. We can support a comfortable, if not lavish, lifestyle on DH's pension. To offset inflation, we will receive additional income at specific intervals in the future (my upcoming Social Security, my modest pensions, then his Social Security); DH's pension also has cost-of-living increases annually which will help a bit. As a result, investing in taxable accounts is actually a drawback for us. The retirement portfolio automatically reinvests all dividends and everything compounds tax-free until you withdraw some/all of it. So, the fees and taxes we would pay on a modest taxable account make little bottom-line sense in our situation. When we sell the house, then it will be time to decide what to do with the proceeds. Much will depend on our health situation; senior housing here in the US is REALLY expensive for the nicer facilities. My ex-boss liked to say, "Don't let the tax tail wag the dog!" But we do have to pay some attention to taxes, especially as they are unusually low in the US right now by historical standards. Even without the deficits, they were bound to swing upwards eventually! I like to be prepared for various future financial scenarios, so my DH and I have discussed many times about doing XX if YY happens, or doing ZZ if QQ occurs. You can never tell when life is going to start throwing not just curveballs, but knuckleballs at you, LOL. Thanks for the summer wish, and I hope yours is good as well. My DH's maternal relatives all live in Canada (most in Vancouver, some in Calgary) and it's a beautiful place.

Usually the owner of the money gives a pot of money now, or makes regular payments over a period of time, to usually an insurance company, in exchange for a benefit that the insurance company offers. The insurance company agrees to begin paying a specified amount to that person, beginning at a certain date and, often, continuing for the rest of the person's life. Or, at a lower rate of regular payout, to include a surviving spouse. However ... some people found that the original owner of the money often died within a few months of beginning to receive the annuity ... and that was the end of the contract: the full amount paid was kept by the insurance company (except for the small amounts paid out). One financial advisor that I knew had a client over 80, with no dependents, that considered buying an annuity (i.e. was in the process of being sold an annuity by an agent). He, cancelling another appointment, travelled some distance to meet with the two, and when he asked how much of a benefit there would be if the lady died in a couple of months, was told that there was no such provision in the proposed agreement. Many people who were much younger than that lady, when considering a proposed contract, didn't like that idea, so there's an option available for the original purchaser to have a provision in the contract where the payout period will be for his/her life but, should s/he not live long after the payout begins, the annuity will continue (at a reduced rate) for a 10, or 15 year, or other length, period. The rates that insurance companies offer regarding annuity payout lebvels usually bear some connection with current interest rates. When rates are high, often the rates of payout offered by annuities are higher than average, but usually not comparable. When rates are low, as they have been lately, payout rates offered are usually low. The reason being that the insurance company has guaranteed to make payouts at predetermined levels, but don't have certainty as to how much they can earn on the invested assets in the meantime. The insurance company doesn't give a guarantee to make a level of payout that is going to hurt them in the end. In the case of life insurance, the owner of the policy bets that s/he's going to die prematurely, when some non-employable dependents require an income for them to live on for a number of years, but leaving no one to provide it. The insurance company bets that the buyer of the life insurance is going to live to an advanced age, paying premiums throughout. The insurance companies are the ones with the actuaries. In the case of an annuity, the buyer is betting that s/he is going to live for a long time ... collecting that annuity payment regularly through to, say, 104. And the insurance company bet that s/he's going to die before they've paid out a bucket of money in total to that person. And if they're covering a spouse, as well, or have given a guarantee that they'll continue paying for, say 10 years, even if the owner dies a month after payout begins ... the amounts of the regular payout the the company is willing to offer is lower. As their risk is greater. I confess to a bias against insurance companies' practices, largely because they marketed whole life insurance policies for ages, telling ofthe great value in having some value build up in the policy over the years. But, in order to collect that "extra value" ... ... the owner of the policy pretty well had to arrange to be alive and dead at the same time. For many, who want to spend some time learning how money works, and are not going to get all bent out of shape if the value of theri assets drops for a while when there are corrections in the equity markets, I think that they can likely do better investing on their own, if they do it skilfully. For quite a long time, I said that no one cares as much about your money as you, so it's wise to learn how to manage it well. But in recent years I've changed the tune somewhat, to ... no one cares as much about your money as you ... except some folks that would like to shift some (most? all?) of it from your pocket ... ... into theirs. Your job is to keep that from happening ... unless you get good value in return. Enough for now. Good wishes for making themost effective coices, given your circumstances. ole joyful