[JoMar]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

I agree highly with your last 2 sentences. I would extend that to mean that success is a matter of having properly prepared yourself. Then, you try to put your ideas to work for profit in some initial venture. Even good ideas FAIL in the marketplace - there are SO many variables! With most of these variables, you have LITTLE control over. MOST inventors fail their 1st time in the marketplace. ONLY a FEW try over and over until they succeed. Of those few, only another small % succeed in a huge manner. They get rewarded to the tune of millions of dollars - even billions. There seems to involve a lot of LUCK and LUCKY timing in the accumulation of individual wealth. Then, they FIGHT to hold onto that money AND keep it in their FAMILIES. The tax system of any country then becomes their enemy!


The US Estate tax system was DESIGNED (early on) to encourage EVERY generation to be REQUIRED to find success on its own. The US Estate tax was designed to prevent families from passing EXCESSIVE wealth forward forever to their next generations. The income tax System was MEANT to be progressive - more income you pay a greater % to the government. When families pass wealth along untaxed, the ULTIMATE result is KINGS and KINGDOMS - THE VERY problem that the early American settlers were running away from - they FEARED a return to KINGS.

Today the SUPER wealthy have made rules to suit themselves - ways to get around estate taxes - ways to avoid the higher tax brackets. The result is the formation of small kingdoms (you could call them Princedoms also). An example today would be the Koch Brothers, the family of Sheldon Adelson - the Las Vegas big hotel owner, several NYC real estate developer families, and others (some keeping low profiles). One basic principle of government is to TAX the LUCKY individuals and re-distribute (not a dirty word) some wealth from the LUCKY individuals to the less LUCKY individuals. This could be best described as social empathy and fairness. Today the GREED of the LUCKY wealthy ones overpowers their sense of social responsibility and empathy. A wealthy individual that encompasses the American ideals of social responsibility and fairness is Warren Buffet. If ALL the wealthy ONLY had his attitude - The US would be a wonderful COUNTRY. Today the wealthy have allowed their GREED to put the US into a tailspin.

Pretty sure you were not one of LUCKY individuals which makes your post, though slightly ignorant, understandable.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Pairadocs

Perhaps more people will now consider retiring there (to New Zealand). They are a leading country in literacy too, so those who have always had a nagging feeling that there are many more attractive countries than the United States, will seriously consider not suffering away their best years here ? Years ago when I was really not near retirement, many near retirement at the university where I was on faculty were making plans to retire in Mexico. I believe if people made more decisions based on their own personal desires, political leanings, comfort zone, and socioeconomic preferences, we'd be a much more peaceful, homogeneous (regardless of our cultural roots, colors, or religions), and just plain happy country. But people continue to live in great stress and unhappiness, spending their lives preferring to complain and/or just living in envy of what they "could" have if only they were in --------- (fill in the blank). It's the old old "grass is greener" saying, and perhaps it IS GREENER, so why not take the initiative to go where there is the best fit for you ! I am NOT saying the old "if you don't like it get OUT", not at all, just that people should put more thought into their own life and happiness than they do when choosing a location, city or country to live in.

I agree. A very well done and thought-provoking post.

[MareL]

Originally Posted by Kenswing

We currently live in WA. which is also a no income tax state. My wife is a nurse. She will be taking an almost 50% cut in pay when we move to The Villages..

I moved here from Az. My daughter & Grandson moved with me. She is a Certified Medical Assistant which means she has student loans to pay. In Az she was making $16/hr and had 3 1/2 yrs experience. Here DOCTOR offices were offering her $10. She is a single parent. She bought a small house with the Gov's help (due to low income). It is actually less expensive for her to make mortgage payments than it was to pay Rent. With all the elderly here in Fl, where would these Dr's be without their Medical Assistants running their offices? But they offer such low salaries because they can get away with it. After living here for almost 3 yrs, she has FINALLY found an office that pays a decent salary of $15/hour.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by davephan

Have you ever visited New Zealand and Australia? I have. The standard of living is drastically lower in New Zealand than Australia, and the standard of living in Australia is drastically lower than in the US.

Gasoline is about $9 to $10 a gallon in New Zealand. A shirt in New Zealand costs about $100. The same shirt in the US is $16. An electric food mixer that costs about $280 in the US, costs $1,500 in New Zealand. All those are prices converted to USD and the gallon. As a result of the extremely high prices in New Zealand, the standard of living is drastically lower than in the US.

New Zealand and Australia are places to visit. I’d never ever want to live there. The governments in both countries are extremely liberal too. If you drive a car, minor violations get you “points”. Only a few points, and you can’t drive for two years!

Standard of living : The US ranks around 30th in the world in the World list of the standard of living. There are separate categories for "infant mortality", which tells you about Health care. There are many other categories, but its PURPOSE is to provide a yardstick to measure or compare various countries. It is very informative. The Scandinavian countries are at the top. I believe that Canada is about # 11. Not sure where New Zealand is - I have not looked at that list in about 6 months. Had no reason to.

Liberals and car accident : If New Zealand is a liberal country, then I would LOVE to live there. So smart! As to they take away a person's driver's license for 2 years because they were caught driving badly, I would also LOVE that mentality towards driver safety. A teenager in the US that CAUSED a traffic accident SHOULD have their license taken away for 2 years. Then, they would NEVER forget it - which may stop them from driving drunk in their future life and KILLING someone. I would NOT like to be killed by a bad driver, would you? A liberal, country of GOOD drivers - what's NOT to like? Go New Zealand, you rule!

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Pairadocs

Totally agree with you with one exception that is a bit misleading. Definitely not 90% of college grads make a "bad" investment. If you look deeper, sadly, to many students choose the wrong major IF pay back is their major focus. We always had many students who were only interested in degrees in social work, marketing, and others. While fine majors, follow you heart's desire, they are usually warned (not always) that they have not chosen high paying fields (if that is what they are seeking, return on investment). Then, there are many who do not choose their college or university carefully. Not necessary to go Ivy League or top 10, but the problem comes in when students are not detailed in researching things like accreditation, research and writing recognition of faculty (again, MANY FINE small schools have outstanding faculty), and much more. So many "invest" in schools with poor track records of placement assistance, lack of accreditation, and now the valuable outreach of making the higher education experience available to a larger audience via technology, has resulted in a much devalued educational experience and ultimately a "useless" degree (thought ALL learning is valuable in that it enriches the individual's personal life and self-esteem). But, 90% figure of "useless" degrees and debt is too high, not accurate. Same exists in "trade" schools, must be very careful, some are very valuable, some are definitely NOT ! Regarding your comment about people investing in themselves, RIGHT ON ! Have you noticed (those of you who have traveled, lived, and studied abroad a great deal) that our country seems to be one where people are more willing to invest in hobbies, and nicer tech items, clothing, shoes, etc. than they are in themselves ? Not a condemnation, just an observation. Last comment on your post. I believe the reason so many people do not truly understand the repercussions of socialism and the progression to communism (not due to basic ideology but due to the pure greed and ambition of those who feel the power of being "in charge" of so many) is because so many have NOT actually known someone who lived under such systems, who have personal knowledge. Here in Florida we have the advantage of actually knowing people who have lived in Cuba, Venezuela, and many island and central American countries, as well as those from various European autocratic governments. Once people have a personal contact/friend who has actually known that life, their perspective changes and they begin to really understand.

Yes, communism is bad. WE have a greater chance of going off the deep end in the OTHER direction. I agree with ALL the rest of that good discussion.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

Apples and oranges. Try to move to New Zealand if you have no skills and can't even speak the language.

Apples and oranges and other fancy fruit.....I looked at New Zealand that way.......by the by they speak English in New Zealand.

[davephan]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Standard of living : The US ranks around 30th in the world in the World list of the standard of living. There are separate categories for "infant mortality", which tells you about Health care. There are many other categories, but its PURPOSE is to provide a yardstick to measure or compare various countries. It is very informative. The Scandinavian countries are at the top. I believe that Canada is about # 11. Not sure where New Zealand is - I have not looked at that list in about 6 months. Had no reason to.

Liberals and car accident : If New Zealand is a liberal country, then I would LOVE to live there. So smart! As to they take away a person's driver's license for 2 years because they were caught driving badly, I would also LOVE that mentality towards driver safety. A teenager in the US that CAUSED a traffic accident SHOULD have their license taken away for 2 years. Then, they would NEVER forget it - which may stop them from driving drunk in their future life and KILLING someone. I would NOT like to be killed by a bad driver, would you? A liberal, country of GOOD drivers - what's NOT to like? Go New Zealand, you rule!

You get “points” for tiny infractions. Such as stopping a little too close to an intersection. Going a tiny amount above the speed limit in a school zone. Not coming to a full stop at a stop sign. I’m not talking about major things, like DWI, totally reckless speeding, etc. The government is a nanny state in New Zealand.

A large number of people want to leave New Zealand to go to Australia because the wages/costs increase their standard of living significantly.

A tiny two bedroom, one bathroom condo costs about $500K and a tiny home costs over $1M. The equivalent home could be found for about $250K.

The food costs were at least double, maybe triple.

But New Zealand and Australia are great places to visit. But be prepared to spend a lot of money on that trip!

[davephan]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Apples and oranges and other fancy fruit.....I looked at New Zealand that way.......by the by they speak English in New Zealand.

They do speak English in New Zealand, but with a significant accent. Not as thick an accident as the UK.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by JoMar

Pretty sure you were not one of LUCKY individuals which makes your post, though slightly ignorant, understandable.

Thank you! Saying that I am only SLIGHTLY ignorant is the BEST thing anyone has said to me in years. I have real tears in my eyes. This IS an emotional moment. I could fall in LOVE. .......I remember back.....I got a term paper back from an English Professor with a C+ grade on it and the message......"only slightly ignorant".....
..........Those were the days, my friend ......we wrote and never won....

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Originally Posted by STLRAY

Many on here have expressed concern that the higher minimum wage will be inflationary. It will, but probably to a lesser degree than many fear. On average restaurants spend 30 percent of sales on payroll. Profit margins are 5 percent. Figure payroll costs will increase about 50 percent when this is fully phased in. (Some employees probably already make more than the new minimum) So, you can expect to see about a 15 percent increase in prices over five years if the owners pass all the costs on to their customers or about three percent per year.

3 percent a year and inflation right now is 1.6%, and social security increase for next year is 1.3%, so you have a small loss of purchasing power at a restaurant. However, a healthy economy has at minimum a 2% inflation rate, or higher, as stated by the goals of the federal reserve.

What is not measured very well, is the economics of price stability. If prices are to remain flat, and corporations want to grow income, there are only two answers, more customers, or cutting costs. Cutting costs involve eliminating jobs, and substitution of cheaper ingredients. . both of those do not have unlimited opportunities to growth.

So, in the end, from behavioral economics, is to have inflation run between 2 and 3% with salaries increase about the same, so that citizens see a wage increase, they feel good, and they can still afford the same items. . . not bad feelings. . . and companies can grow revenue a small amount, still good.

If you want more, you have to work harder or smarter, but inflation and price increases at the current level are not a significant business killer, as some wildly generalized predictions have been posted.

finance guy

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy

3 percent a year and inflation right now is 1.6%, and social security increase for next year is 1.3%, so you have a small loss of purchasing power at a restaurant. However, a healthy economy has at minimum a 2% inflation rate, or higher, as stated by the goals of the federal reserve.

What is not measured very well, is the economics of price stability. If prices are to remain flat, and corporations want to grow income, there are only two answers, more customers, or cutting costs. Cutting costs involve eliminating jobs, and substitution of cheaper ingredients. . both of those do not have unlimited opportunities to growth.

So, in the end, from behavioral economics, is to have inflation run between 2 and 3% with salaries increase about the same, so that citizens see a wage increase, they feel good, and they can still afford the same items. . . not bad feelings. . . and companies can grow revenue a small amount, still good.

If you want more, you have to work harder or smarter, but inflation and price increases at the current level are not a significant business killer, as some wildly generalized predictions have been posted.

finance guy

Absolutely correct.as to the situation TODAY using standard economic theory. Interest rates are low and the Fed is under strong pressure to keep it that way. That could change with changes in Washington. Also, CV (if unresolved in 2021) will / (or could) cause a DISTORTION in standard economic theory. WE could have negative interest rates or rampant inflation in 2021. Many Historians believe that in the US and the world there will be normal History before CV and strange, distorted History after CV. It could be that big of a factor. China could emerge the dominant economic country.

[Pairadocs]

Originally Posted by Bikeracer2009

In the 50's a carpenter could have a house, a wife that didn't work and put his kids through college before he retired. Wages started to stagnate as cola went up. By the 70's double income households became the norm as more women entered the workforce to maintain their lifestyle. The 80's brought on credit debt to keep things going. The wage divide has increased in non-union companies between the top earners and the bottom dwellers. The minimum wage increases are at least a decade apart but cola keeps chugging along so each year you technically make less money if you're paid a minimum wage.
My mother worked for minimum wages her whole life, raised two kids without a father and died without a funeral. Life was a struggle and homelessness was a yearly experience. Going days without eating, no heat in the winter or a/c in the summer.

I think the minimum wage should be a living wage. Take the average 1 bedroom apartment, the cost to live in it and the bare minimum it takes to survive in that state, divide that into an hourly pay and set that as the minimum wage for that state.

The last job I had the CEO made 8 million a year and got a 12 million dollar bonus. The workers paid more for their Healthcare. Seems fair.

Apart from the "arguments" concerning effects, pro and con, of minimum wage, I would like to salute you. I, like you and many here who have commented, have had some rough times, but to go days without eating (and probably those were the days when you were not fed anything at public schools either), and to live in a cold climate with no heat at all, is a testimony to you and your determination (which you must have had in spades to be able to retire and enjoy the life we have here), and hard work. It made me remember what my mother told me, no matter how difficult we had it (mother also widowed and with no particular skills plus did not even drive !), that there is always someone who has it tougher. Good for you, if only these days people had what you had inside to overcome such a horrific life, and not just to survive, but to truly overcome as you have, such people today who take personal responsibility and don't look to the government to improve their lot in life, are rare, and you and others in "our generation", perhaps a buzz word today but so true, are among the hearty, and determined, folks who really made this country what it is. Imagine being not only without food for days as you were, and without heat or shelter, and then taking off in a wagon to the complete unknown in search of a better life. Hope you and I are not a "dying breed", but I fear younger folks today could not make it.

[Pairadocs]

Originally Posted by Art cov

If one is worth $15 or $20 an hour, most businesses would gladly pay the wage if a person is worth it. A good worker is hard to find. Hard to find those who will show up and hustle. I would much rather pay $15 or $20 then $10. Try hiring 10 people and see how long they will last. The fact is those that are not worth $15 an hour will be out of a job. I have paid employees $20 an hour, but those folks would do 3 times as much work in a week then the lazy ones. The market will pay what a person is worth and if they think that they should be paid more then go find that job. Employers are tired of lazy people who can’t get on the job, or full of drama, and find every excuse to not work. Pay them what their worth and if their not worth it, let them go.

I don't disagree at all, it's just that sometimes that is very difficult to do. For a number of years I hired individuals for positions in public schools, from teaching to class room assistants, from custodians to clerical people. It was extremely difficult to hire and KEEP good class room assistants for the teaching staff. They were paid minimum wage as per the union dictates. Since they were not highly paid, many thought nothing of picking up personal packages, making trips to the post office, even picking up dry cleaning and dropping off checks to pay utility bills, all on paid time. Yet, I was forbidden to raise the wages of those assistants who went out of their way to help the classroom teachers, who often stayed long hours with no hourly wages, to get ready for a special event for parents or the community. In other words, when every one must be treated "evenly", "fairly as some call it", there is no incentive to excel, to go the extra mile as you pointed out. Everyone was still going to make $8 an hour, and the chances of loosing your job for doing personal errands on paid time ? No possibility ! The time and effort, plus the amount of taxpayer MONEY put into doing background checks and then paid training hours required to instill the skills needed to work with young students, guarantees job security. It's ALL INSIDE the individual, some will always give their all and do their best and more. Others will get by with as little as possible. It's in every setting, from hospitals to schools, from restaurants to factory floors. It's a difficult quality to "screen" for. Most individuals are able to pass personal interviews and convince the interviewer they are dedicated, hard working, individuals who would never attempt to "cheat" their employer out of the time the paid for.

As the write above pointed out, it takes a good sized pool of individuals to find a few responable individuals, and when you do, you "should" (but can't always) be able to reward them with higher wages; if only as an example to others that hard work and dedication does pay off ! A "chart" or "agreement", that gives the specific amount you will be paid each hour and for each year of work for an organization, regardless of your "hustle" as the writer above called it, only guarantees mediocre performance from "some" (never ALL) folks, while others will always give 125%, rather they are having a "bad hair day or a migraine day". Never could find a way around that in my personal administrative experience. From the CEO and CFO, to the support workers, incentives, in the form of $$$'s, work ! It's a powerful motivator, just profuse "thanks" are not always enough.

[Pairadocs]

Originally Posted by Medtrans

I don’t know what part of “up north” you are referring too, but I’ve lived in 4 up north states and not one of them was less costly than Florida. Three times property taxes than here in 2 of those states, and state income tax. Maybe a gallon of milk was less or a loaf of bread but pretty sure I can handle that over property taxes!

Oh how right YOU ARE ! Good grief, and one more point, not only the taxes taxes taxes, and getting LESS for all those taxes, but also you forgot to mention taxing your pensions to the hilt too. I know, probably people who came from (just a guess, maybe Wyoming, South Dakota, I don't know, but I have not found a less expensive location (though friends have told me Texas is even more affordable). Family members who "thought" Arkansas would be a good choice over Michigan for retirement, really experienced a shock, and yesterday they got another tax raise... so don't look that direction if you are trying to get out of Florida, but I don't blame anyone for trying to do the best they can for themselves !

[Pairadocs]

Originally Posted by pvetrano1

R u nuts ? I live in NJ and I can tell you , nothing is more expensive in Florida !

Are you serious, or just making a little levity in these depressing times ? If you are really serious, try Illinois or Michigan, you'll really find you can appreciate Florida after that. Can't speak for N.J., but if it is really that inexpensive, since it does have an ocean, I would consider living there !