This is a subject so terribly fraught with spectres of greed, avarice, controversy that it's often difficult to be really honest when discussing it. I tip my hat to Nancy in Mich. for stepping up to the mike and asking me WHY my brother and I arrived at the decision we did. It's important that those questions be asked and that they be answered. I worry a lot about this. I worry that Mum will deteriorate to such an extent that she cannot remain with me or my brother, in a setting that is familiar to her, surrounded with things and pets that she "remembers". I have seen the interior of nursing homes and "rehabilitation" facilities 3 times. Only one of the 3 was "acceptable", the other two were so pathetically inadequate I wouldn't send a hated enemy there. And it wasn't for lack of funding... (heaven knows Mum was a "cash cow"! spry, pleasant, and cooperative)it was for lack of QUALIFIED staffing. Those workers "in the trenches", were largely immigrant, working for minimum wage (probably without any benefit package, too), and barely able, with their broken English, to communicate with wards barely able to comprehend the spoken word, let alone that spoken with a thick accent, no matter how affectionately! THEY were the real treasures! they were attentive, affectionate, and virtually ignored by more "educated" staff. The most PATHETIC employees were the vaunted RNs, PTs... no kidding! I have, NEVER, in my life met a more arrogant, selfish, unwilling cadre of "caregivers". I was embarrassed for THEM; they were nearly universally unwilling to do ANYTHING that remotely required "hands on" work. "I'll call an aid"; "I have other duties to attend to...". "Could you call me later?" (needless to say they didn't "do" e-mail). Oh, I've heard it all. And that's why Mum is with me and my brother and NOT in one of those hell-holes. $60-80K/yr. for THAT? I rather think not. But families willing to do the work to keep them at home can't be compensated? HUH?! Welcome to life, corporate America runs this country, make no mistake about it. But consider this: you wouldn't have wanted to be the RN on "duty" (eating her doughnut behind the counter at "reception"!) when my brother arrived at 11:30 AM on Saturday morning, the day after Mum was transferred. She was lying in bed, soaked in urine (failed urostomy appliance), unfed. He coolly told the RN to get her ass in the room and take care of it. He went next to the administrator's office. From that day on, he and I went to visit Mum EVERY SINGLE DAY for 5 weeks to "check up" on her care. I HAD TO TEACH THOSE RNs HOW TO CHANGE AN UROSTOMY APPLIANCE. (Wingate) There is one level of employee I hold in greater contempt, though. And that's the SOCIAL WORKER. Never, in my life, have I seen a greater waste of payroll than they. I have had the (dis)pleasure to deal with 7 in the past 3 years. ONLY ONE of them was helpful in any meaningful way. Frankly, the other 6 could have been nicely replaced with a WEBSITE. The one that was helpful is someone with whom I still maintain contact. She has remained a tried, true, and good friend. When you find a good one, stick with them! Am I angry? You bet. Why? because the whole system is set up to milk families of their assets even as they "tell" families they can't possibly "take adequate care" of much loved elders. The entire system is stacked against those of us who are willing to care for our families. Mark my words, this is the coming battleground and I'll be well finished with it in a few short years. Me? I've joined the Hemlock Society!

Remember you can own more than 40 different types of assets in an IRA account. You're not limited to holding just traditional securities. Most major brokerage firms managing IRAs offer a selection of mutual funds for you to invest in but restrict your holdings to traditional securities. They are usually not equipped to handle real estate, private equities or others asset classes that the IRS permits. For instance, you can own most any type of real estate including vacation houses, boat slips, and/or commercial. You cannot, however, own any real estate that you care currently benefiting from. For example, you can own a beach house but you or your family cannot use the property during the time it's held within your IRA. But, you can rent it for a profit. Another example...you can purchase a building lot and flip it 30 days later for a profit...all legal within your IRA. You can even invest in cattle within your IRA. Banks will also lend on IRA purchases. So, it's possible to use leverage. You can expect to pay a slightly higher interest rate than if you were borrowing personally but, in some cases such as real estate, the ability to use leverage in your IRA more than justifies the higher rate. Most people are only aware of the traditional mutual fund type of investments. But, if those are doing poorly...well, you've got other choices. To invest in other types of assets, you need to open whats called a "self-directed IRA" with a custodian that allows you to invest in the full range of asset types allowed by the IRS. With a self-directed IRA, you can invest in real estate and privately held businesses, make secured loans (such as a mortgage), make unsecured loans, and also invest in traditional assets such as stocks and mutual funds. With real estate bought by a self-directed IRA, any income and capital gains grow tax-deferred in the case of traditional IRA or tax-free in the case of a Roth. Fees for a "self directed" IRA with a full-service custodian are higher than those charged by custodians offering only traditional securities. There are only 3 assets classes the IRS forbids you to hold within an IRA: Collectibles, Life Insurance, & S Corporations. As usual with the IRS, there are lots of little quirky rules that failure to follow could result in significant penalties so this type of IRA investing is not recommended for people skittish about actively participating in the decision making process. Anyway, you would not have to sell an office building or a herd of cattle just because you changed custodians. The "system" is geared towards funneling the "masses" into traditional securities. OTOH, that's the safest investment for the vast majority of people. /tricia

Maybe a fund of about $1.333 million at about 3% would be a more feasible scenario. Not providing for sale of some assets, rather probable in a 1.5 - 2 million or larger asset portfolio situation (some paying almost no dividends or none), which would result in capital gains/(losses) to relate to current income. In earlier years, if one received $10,000. of dividends from Canadian Corporations, one added (Grossed-up) 25% to that figure to find the taxable amount of dividend income, to report $12,500. on the tax return. Then 13.333% of that amount, or Dividend Tax Credit of $1,666.63 was deducted from the tax that one owed. Non-refundable tax credits were available to most taxpayers, and those along with the dividend tax credits, allowed "taxpayers" with no other income to have about $27,000. solely dividend income to have nil tax to pay. Now this situation is called "Ineligible dividends" and the ratios are as indicated above. A new category of "Eligible dividends", which seems to include dividends paid by most stock-exchange-listed Canadian corporations, are grossed up by 45%, i.e. $10,000. cash is reported as $14,500. on the tax return - and have a Dividend Tax Credit of 18.9655% of the taxable amount, or $2,750. deducted from the tax owing. This, added to the Non-refundable tax credits, allows a "taxpayer" to have nearly $40,000. before becoming tax-liable. Which may be pushed higher in various other circumstances that I think that I outlined above. Most long-term Canadian residents, including non-employed people (e.g. housewives), qualify for Old Age Security at age 65 of about $5,800. annually. As this is a non-contributory Federal benefit, if the taxpayer's annual income is over about $55,000., part of that Old Age Security is clawed back by the gov't. The clawback amount increases, till the total amount of one's O.A.S. is clawed back when one's income is in the mid- to high $80,000.00s. Cash dividend of $40,000. plus 45% becomes $58,000. on tax return, plus $5,800. O.A.S., close to $64,000. taxable, will result in substantial clawback of one's O.A.S. benefit. Plus reduction in senior's Age credit, which reduces with increased "income" - whether "real" or "imagined" income! "Gross", huh? Canada Pension Plan (mandatory contributions by both employer and employee, therefore a contractual benefit) allows members who are "substantially retired" (rather loosely defined) to stop contributing and begin to claim benefits at any time between age 60 and 70, with 6% annual reduction if claimed under 65 and 6% annual addition if over 65. Taxable. Private pension plan benefits are available to some people. Benefits of up to $1,000. from private pension plan or RRIF payments qualify one for a non-refundable tax credit, dollar for dollar, up to $1,000. If one is age 69, partial owner (the government being the other partial owner) of a tax-deferred retirement account (RRSP), it must be closed out by the end of that year - or the rules provide that it will be closed out as of Dec. 31 of that year and the total amount added to income in that year. Scarcely anyone chooses this route!! Most personal money managers prefer to use the RRSP money: 1) to buy an annuity (not so hot an idea in these low-interest times), or 2) to roll over into a Registered Retirement Income Fund. With a RRIF, no more deposits allowed, and required to remove at least a given percentage annually, beginning at about 7.5% and rising to 20% annual withdrawal at age 90 and later. Residue in a RRIF on owner's death: if no spouse, infant or disabled dependent kid is added to deceased's income in year of death, or can be fully transferred to one in spouse's name with no tax consequences - yet. Residue is added to current income in year of surviving spouse's death. Where these or other income situations are obtained, the tax reduction is still substantial - but one doesn't avoid tax entirely: one is then a taxpayer (no quotation marks)! There are some other games that an astute portfolio manager can employ, if she/he is willing to a take some moderate short-term risks. There are several fairly smart women in the monthly investment shareclub that I've attended for about 7 years. Good wishes for wise and constructive use of retirement assets. ole joyful

Greetings again, folks, And when did you ever see a G I C ... ... produce any growth? The only return that they'll produce ... is produced now ... and taxed now ... at top rate. The stock that I bought 45 years ago for about $4.20 or so was paying about 10 - 12 cents annual dividend ... which was taxed then at low rate, plus for the latest six years at an even lower rate. In June of '07, when I could have sold it for $107.00, it was paying me $3.08 per year, at that even lower tax rate than earlier, and the annual payment increased to $3.48 later that year. Their involvement with the U.S. financial fiasco resulted in the price of the stock sslliding tto $40.00 - but they maintained the dividend at $3.48. The price has recovered to about $75.00 now ... and they recently increased the dividend to $3.60. That current income is taxed at a much lower rate than interest that I might earn. And I haven't had to talk to the income tax people about the increase in value of the asset, during all of those years. I don't have to report to the income tax people until I either sell the stock ... or die ... neither of which I plan to do, this week or next. When I sell the stock, I deduct the $4.20 that I paid from the, e.g. $74.20? proceeds of sale, to produce a capital gain of $70.00 ... and I pay tax at regular rate on half of that amount. But not until I sell, or die - nothing till then. However - if I transfer the stock to a charity, I get a tax-deductible receipt for the full amount - and I pay no income tax on that increase. And didn't pay about 2.5% of the value annually to a management company, as I'd have to with a mutual fund. You figure it: 45 years at 2.5% of the ongoing value of the fund ... comes out to about 112.5%, doesn't it? No wonder few mutual funds grow faster than the segment of the market in which the manager operates! Looks like a good deal, to me. ole joyful