We could have a similar problem as on of our colleges is working with a college in Sask and the students could end up with 2 degrees. I am assuming the could work in ND and Canada This college has alot of students from Canada. Now sure how it works--tuition money.

The late ecomonic crunch is begining to be felt in the tax coffers of US states. Several states are waking up to the fact their tax take has fallen (surprise, surprise). Down at the end of the bars in our beer halls, you can hear "Fix our tax problem, annex Canada". Back in the 1770s, there was a guy named Revere who took a midinght ride on his pony shouting, "The Red Coats are comming". Let's hope that we don't hear you driving down the road some dark night in your red MG (or maybe its an Aston Martin) shouting "The red-white-blues are coming!" Just kidding, I hope.

Ya right Most Canadians don't have dividend income. Most Canadians don't have near the money set aside to retire at 45 and live for 20 years with no income. Most Canadians take their Canada Pension early, because it gives you income for 5 years before the Old Age Pension kicks in. Go whistle up another tree and start living in the real world. Anyone who needs your information is rich enough to have a money manager and not need your information at all.

Do you think it wise to plan an income to carry you to age 100? It's better to run out of days before one ruins out of dollars than the other way 'round, I've heard. I figure that at 65, I may well have 35 years of life ahead ...which is seven 5-year blocks. If I use up all of the first five-year block during the first five years, it isn't there to work for me any more, so other blocks will have to carry the full load ... but then I'll be eating up the second block, and after ten years it won't be available to work for me any more, either. So it seems to me that I'd better make that first block of funds (i.e. "asset" - not "funds" as in "mutual funds")(1) last for a full ten years, to reduce the possibility of my having eaten through all of them before I hit 100 ... and now some are saying that we should plan to fund to 110, even 120. As I plan to still have 85% of my current asset still around in 10 years, and probably half of it still here in 20 years, it might be wise for me to keep in mind that, since about 1870, there hasn't been a 20 year period in which the entire stock market went down. Dad, as a farmer who of necessity had to make long-term financial plans, used to say that some people couldn't see beyond the end of their own nose. In recent years, we've become more prone to think only of today/the short term. Good wishes to you as you proceed with your plans. Learning how money works (and taxes) is an interesting hobby - and it pays well! ole joyful ... who, at 80+, lives frugally, by choice rather than necessity ... so the assets/investments are, so far, more or less "play money" 1. I haven't bought a mutual fund in 25 years, and not about to. They make great noises about the superior skills of their managers ... but if they're so smart, how come about 85 - 90% of the time they don't do as well as the segment of the market in which they operate? Most of your (i. e. U.S.) managers charge 1.5% or more management fee annually (ours [Canadian] charge 2.5% or more), guaranteed, whether they make any growth or not ... and the only skin that they have in the game is if we get so mad at them that we move our money elsewhere. Nobody cares as much about your money as you ... except possibly someone who may have a strong desire to move some of it from your pocket into his/hers. o j