Hi again, everyone, Update on the above info, offered by my friend the accountant whom I first met at the investment group about 5 years or more ago. The guy who retired last year, without a pension, and who now borrows at about 6% (interest deductible when used for investment) and puts it out to earn about 12% (much of current return at low tax rate, some of it deferred, to be taxed at low rate when withdrawn). He says that the amount of current income that that can be obtained free of tax is closer to $50,000.00. Same provisos as outlined above - with possibility of bumping up the amount that is received free of tax given some of the situations as mentioned. Sorry that the situation applies only to Canadian residents, folks. Good wishes to you and yours. ole joyful P.S. We had a visitor/new member at our investment group last week, who said that she felt rather at sea, among such skilled investors. We told her not to feel bad - that in the investment game, there are no stupid questions. That she should ask any of us to explain various terms or situations that were unfamiliar to her. Each of us learns as we go, a step at a time. Compensation usually increases commensurate with increased knowledge! o j

Sherrmann: I don't know how to do italics either, so I'm just going to use the age old quotes, should I quote you. =0) The different systems were all listed on a website at one time, but it was several months ago, I believe it's "hillaries" plan that has the communist bent I mentioned (though I could be wrong on that....). Obama had one that makes a immediate "check-up" mandatory, though I don't remember what happens if you tell them to pound sand. "WHY ARE YOU NOT BOTHERED BY THAT?" Who says I'm not?!? Ok, I'm not as bothered by companies restricting the folks who choose to use their company, because each and every one of those folks have the choice not to give that company their money. (I also understand that those companies have made agreements with the doctors on their list, that they can only charge their people certain amounts, thus saving the insurance company and the consumer both money. Thus the reasons for the lists.... of course you can go outside your system, but the company will only pay the amount they have worked out with the doctor on their list... you will have to pay the rest.) Consumers seem to have forgotten that what they buy, they get. If there is not an option out there that they find ok, then they have the choice not to buy at all. We had a post either here or in the money saving forum that proves that point to the letter. Someone wanted to be able to pay their bill by phone without charge. At least 5 folks came on saying that they should just accept what the company offered, even if it wasn't what they wanted. Excuse me WHAT?!?!?!? Why the heck should we do that? There are too many companies offering similar services to settle for what one company offers. My dad just had a woman for a satellite company tell him that he had to either pay $70 for a service call, or pay a monthly fee to have them come out and fix their equipment, that there was no other choice. She was actually shocked to find out that HIS choice would involve a rival company and NOT paying this company's bogus fees. (they came out and fixed their stuff without charge) Yes, I know, just like that lady on the phone, many believe that they do not have a choice in the insurance company they choose. It's simply not true. You always have a choice. It may be between something bad and something worse, but it is still a choice. "I DON'T THINK IT IS OK FOR "SOME OF US TO FALL THROUGH THE CRACKS." NO ONE IS MORE ENTITLED TO GOOD HEALTH CARE THAN ANYONE ELSE." No, it's not "OK", but it IS going to happen. No matter how good the system it's still run by people, and people aren't perfect. There are folks in every system in the world falling through those cracks. Are wealthy people "entitled" to more/better care simply because they can pay for it themselves? As much as it seems to go against the grain, and that I hate the word "entitled"....... Yes. In the same way as they are "entitled" to better houses, better cars, and even better tvs. They can pay to fly to where ever the expert in their particular problem is, they can afford to stay as long as they need to in that area, they can afford the fees that the best can charge. They can also chase all over the world for the latest "cure" not available here, to the scientists and the wackos who they think can help. They can pay to have a private nurse come to their home and stay with them for 24 hours a day for months and/or years. And as much as many may hate it, those wealthy folks chasing the fountain of youth, allow the experts to volunteer their time helping those that may not have as much. Allows them to charge less if anything to those who can not afford to pay. And in the case of a home health nurse... pays a living salary for someone else. This does not mean that everyone should not be able to get some basic care. It does not mean that everyone should be able to get good care. And if you need me to pay for your basic health care, then you should be willing to go through the systems currently in place. They may be broken, but they are in place. Somehow it seems to speak to the "throw away" society we have become that no one is interested in fixing what we have, they just want to go out and buy "healthcare 2.0". Kidney cancer (hopefully you are doing better now) is not a minor ailment. I believe that the comment was directed at those who could not be bothered to take a few hours off work to take a kid with a cold to the regular doctor. Anyone who has ever been in an ER has seen the number of folks with routine care concerns that are filling up the seats and bogging down the staff. Each and every one of those folks are going to be charged ER rates, which is probably 2-3 times more than a regular office visit, even including the time off work. Which may have something to do with Americans "paying twice as much" for care than other parts of the world, if in fact we do. If we do it is probably the ONLY thing we pay more for. I believe that I am intelligent enough to make my own decisions, and am old enough to take responsibility for my own actions or inactions. Whatever they may be. I wonder how many folks will be thrown into financial trouble by these plans (even those without a communist bent). With many living paycheck to paycheck and that's without insurance... how much worse off will those that we are supposedly trying to "help" be? How many will tank out and go under with the additional tax burden? Yes, it sounds good as long as you do not scratch the surface. So did ARM's and IO loans not too long ago......

time for this to drop down

Recently a number of (mainly seniors) have been using a certain type of investment (unit trusts) that paid quite a high rate of return, some of it tax advantaged in the recipient's hands, plus some of it return of part of one's originally invested money. Such companies that structured themselves to pay out most of their earnings to shareholders were allowed to escape paying corporate tax. Some people who owned a somewhat different type of investment, stocks of Canadian companies, paying a much lower rate of return felt that they were being unfairly treated, and quite a few were leaving the type of investment that they'd been using to buy the other type. So the government changed the rules of calculating tax on the second type of income relative to 2006, with a view to encouraging a number of taxpayers to stay put. Until 2005, a single "taxpayer" who'd earned somewhere around $27,000 - 30,000. of solely that kind of income had a couple of types of credits work to allow them to have their tax liability reduced to zero. The differing method of calculation in 2006 allowed the level of the single "taxpayer's" income from solely that type of income to increase to $46,345. before becoming liable to pay one cent of income tax ... except the $600. Ontario Health Levy in this province. Would that my Member of Parliament's office were to notify every constituent annually of all the changes to the tax code, especially ways that some fortunate people could avoid paying tax at all up to over $45,000. ... ... but I'm not holding my breath, waiting for such a day! The person who told me of it was a C.A. who'd been an accountant (I think controller) of a substantial local company, prior to his retirement (with no pension) a couple of years ago. We've attended a monthly study group learning about investments for over 7 years (sometimes travel together to the meeting) ... I've learned a lot in that group. The government recently changed the tax rules relative to the first type of investment ... not allowing the corporations to avoid income tax, even if they agree to pay out most of their income. The value of that market lost billions overnight ... I can send any of you interested some delicious cartoons related to that! Recovered a substantial portion of it, later. In the light of that ... they may change the rules again next year relative to the second type of income, to increase the rate of income tax on it to more or less previous levels. Good wishes for learning more about the effective use of your income and assets. ole joyful