Retiring In Canada

[ShokWaveRider]

I've spent a lot of time in Canada. I don't see very many reasons to visit, much less live there.

John Galt

John, for all your good points, that is a pretty philistine attitude.

Try Clean Air, (in 90% of the country as opposed to 30%); Fish you can eat when you catch them; A good Affordable healthcare system; No Defecit; Affordable housing in urban areas; Beautiful countryside to name but a few. Not perfect by any means but a lot better than some retirement havens highlighted in Money Magazine.

Apart form that it is rated as one of the top 5 best places to live in the world.

SWR

 

[John Galt]

Well, the fishing is pretty good, and the scenery is
often pleasant. But, it's buggy out in the country,
the weather is lousy, and the politics are even less
appealing than the U.S.A. I have said it before;
but truly about the only real advantage I can see
is the lower population density.

John Galt

 

[Hyperborea]

Well, the fishing is pretty good, and the scenery is
often pleasant.  But, it's buggy out in the country,
the weather is lousy, and the politics are even less
appealing than the U.S.A.  I have said it before;
but truly about the only real advantage I can see
is the lower population density.

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree then. I look at at the issue almost 180 degrees differently. The politics are much better in Canada, the people are in general friendlier, the high population density cities are safer and more livable, and you get 4 real seasons of weather.

Hyperborea

 

[BunsGettingFirm]

Shok, how did you manage to become a citizen of Canada, the U.S., and the E.U.? Did you have to work in Canada for a certain amount of time? I'd love to hear about it.

Canada may be cold, but Canadians aren't as uptight as Americans, and I like that. For those who have spent time there, I think you know the difference. For those who don't know, and don't think the U.S. is uptight, then I don't think you'd enjoy retiring in Canada solely for the medical benefits and the cheaper houses.

I did a bit of searching on realtor.com, and townhouses in the suburbs of Montreal and Toronto are in the $120K - $150K U.S.D. range, and I have visited some of these locations on my vacations. They are decent. Rent's dirt cheaper in Montreal because a lof of English speakers left for Toronto right after the separatist movement.

Up to mid 90's, Mexico, Canada, and Costa Rica all had retiree citizenship, but somehow all three countries revoked this type of citizenship at about the same time, so now even if you do manage to buy property and live in any of these countries, you still have to come back to the U.S. every 6 months. Kind of a silly waste of time and money. I don't know why the retiree citizenship was revoked. If anyone knows why this happened, please let me know.

 

[haha]

Up to mid 90's, Mexico, Canada, and Costa Rica all had retiree citizenship, but somehow all three countries revoked this type of citizenship at about the same time, so now even if you do manage to buy property and live in any of these countries, you still have to come back to the U.S. every 6 months. Kind of a silly waste of time and money. I don't know why the retiree citizenship was revoked.  If anyone knows why this happened, please let me know.

Only the USA allows itself to be a dump for the uneducated, old, and sick excess population of practically any other country. My neighborhood is full of very old Russians. Almost none of them speak English. I never see them with adult children, so I wonder who is supporting them? I would guess that I probably am, but I can't be sure.

The only positive I can see is that the quality of smoked herring and cultured milk products has gone way up. And the young Russian women are totally yummy. Quite different from the image I remember from my boyhood in the 50s. Olga, the 185 pound shotputter is out. Natasha the 115 pound beautifully dressed red head is in.

Overall though is seems that the American middle class are pack animals for rest of the the world.

Mikey

 

[John Galt]

Yes Mikey, the American middle class are "pack animals"
for the rest of the world. However, they are also pack animals for the rest of the USA. That is every bit as
sad. It won't last forever (nothing does) but I will have
to live out my life without seeing a change.

John Galt

 

[unclemick]

Interesting. The bulk of new businesses and and construction in my old neighborhood are Vietnamese as well as dominating the academic lists in public school.

Sadly - the new genaration is American, 1-2 ft taller, overweight, rap, gothic, you name and probably self indulgent, and complaining as much as the rest us middle 'classers'.

Optimistically- the bulk of self employed and small business starts will continue to be generated by that miniority of the 'middle class' who go ahead in spite of the odds.

 

[John Galt]

Hello unclemick! Re, "going ahead in spite of the odds",
I admire people who will still do it, but I've been there
and done that. Now, when I hear about all the problems and stress people are enduring, I can't help but think "There but for the grace of God........"

John Galt

 

[ShokWaveRider]

What is the definition of a "middle class" American? With respect to Retiree of course. Not interested in those worker bees any more.

Is it Monetary based? If so how much? And where does upper middle take over?

Just curious.

 

[unclemick]

Net asset value? Somewhere above and below the median. Then there's pensions and SS? Most of the media stuff focuses on assets - not aditudes.

 

[John Galt]

Hello ShokWaveRIder! I don't know how to define
middle class, either for retired folks or in general.
However, I did read something at the library which caught my eye. Can't recall what newspaper or magazine it was in, but they broke down average net
worth by family into about 5 or 6 age classifications,
nationwide. I noticed even my meager little pile put me
above all of the categories' averages. Whodathunkit??

John Galt

 

[unclemick]

Middle class retiree? I don't think so. Just from reading posts to this forum -we're all over the map both asset and lifestyle wise - Heck as ER's, we 'own' the map. Hoo - Ra!

One vote for ER as a state of mind - let the other 'classes' eat their hearts out.

 

[ShokWaveRider]

I define my ER Middle Class perspective as "not having to work" as opposed to not working. I am 50 so get sweet naff all from the government(s) (I potentially have pensions however small in the US, Canada and the UK). I wish my "meager pile" was a little less meager but don't we all? The fact we are in the ER club, I would think automatically makes us middle class by definition. Assuming we do not live in a carboard box on desolation row.

 

[Hyperborea]

Only the USA allows itself to be a dump for  the uneducated, old, and sick excess population of practically any other country. My neighborhood is full of very old Russians.  Almost none of them speak English. I never see them with adult children, so I wonder who is supporting them? I would guess that I probably am, but I can't be sure.

They're not getting in unless they have close enough family ties to a US citizen for a family sponsored visa. Green card holders can only bring in immediate family (spouse and non-adult children) and even then some of the delays can be huge. The US has no "retiree" visa. Those old immigrants are also not elligible for Social Security and IIRC no welfare etc. either.

If you're coming in as a legal immigrant other than family then you are generally more educated than the general US population, you have to pass a medical exam, and be at least young enough that the employer who is sponsoring you thinks they will get a return on their investment.

Hyperborea

 

[John Galt]

Hello Hyperborea. Re. your comments on immigration,
just curious. What planet have you been living on?
Our government policies are a joke. Our borders might
as well be non-existent. And now, anyone who gets
in will be rewarded with my money. I am not happy,
but I am resigned to this stupidity.

John Galt

 

[Ted]

What is the definition of a "middle class" American?  

The term "middle class" becomes elevated to the buzz-word of the day every political campaign season, because both Republicans and Democrats claim to be "for middle class Americans."

But they differ in their concepts of what "middle class" means (although no political candidate has the guts to specifically explain what he/she means by "middle class").

To Democrats, the implied definition of "middle class" is anyone who "works for a living" -- meaning anyone who either does strictly manual work or low level administrative work, or belongs to a labor union. (The latter includes people such as professional athletes making millions of dollars per year, airline pilots making well over $100,000 per year, and members of certain other unions whose income is far above average). Any non-unionized person who works by using their brain is excluded, except of course for the candidates themselves. Lately, these have included Howard Dean (doctor/politician), Dick Gephardt (lawyer/politician), John Edwards (lawyer/politician), Al Sharpton ("holy man," professional organizer of protests in support of black people's positions whether they are right or wrong), Wesley Clark (Four Star General, Five Star Opportunist) etc, etc.

When Republicans refer to the "middle class," they generally mean those people who have been economically successful (or are on track to be); who have the naive notion that they "did it all themselves" (ignoring the many government functions that were an essential ingredient to their success); and who therefore believe that the taxes they are paying are "an unfair burden" on them. Too bad that they have to keep their $40,000 SUV for another year before they trade it in for another

I'm forever looking to support candidates who will acknowledge the following: (1)That the people with the highest incomes generally contribute the most to the economy, at the same time that they benefit the most from government; (2) That they do pay the major share of taxes; and (3) That they should continue to pay the major share of taxes. But how is a candidate going to display the "charisma" necessary to win their party's nomination with a centrist message like that?

 

[John Galt]

Hello Ted. Re. "I'm forever looking to support candidates, etc etc............................" I think you
are a smart guy, but you would be better off
dropping out and never voting again (like me).
Otherwise you are doomed to disappointment.
I look at our choices for 2004 and see a solid
base for starting up a new mental institution.
Most of these people are out of touch with reality.
Republicans or Democrats, who can tell the difference
anymore?

John Galt

 

[Ted]

What is the definition of a "middle class" American?  

The term "middle class" becomes elevated to the buzz-word of the day every political campaign season, because both Republicans and Democrats claim to be "for middle class Americans."

But they differ in their concepts of what "middle class" means (although no political candidate has the guts to specifically explain what he/she means by "middle class").

To Democrats, the implied definition of "middle class" is anyone who "works for a living" -- meaning anyone who either does strictly manual work or low level administrative work, or belongs to a labor union. (The latter includes people such as professional athletes making millions of dollars per year, airline pilots making well over $100,000 per year, and members of certain other unions whose income is far above average). Any non-unionized person who works by using their brain is excluded, except of course for the candidates themselves. Lately, these have included Howard Dean (doctor/politician), Dick Gephardt (lawyer/politician), John Edwards (lawyer/politician), Al Sharpton ("holy man," professional organizer of protests in support of black people's positions whether they are right or wrong), Wesley Clark (Four Star General, Five Star Opportunist) etc, etc.

When Republicans refer to the "middle class," they generally mean those people who have been economically successful (or are on track to be); who have the naive notion that they "did it all themselves" (ignoring the many government functions that were an essential ingredient to their success); and who therefore believe that the taxes they are paying are "an unfair burden" on them. Too bad that they have to keep their $40,000 SUV for another year before they trade it in for another

I'm forever looking to support candidates who will acknowledge the following: (1)That the people with the highest incomes generally contribute the most to the economy, at the same time that they benefit the most from government; (2) That they do pay the major share of taxes; and (3) That they should continue to pay the major share of taxes. But how is a candidate going to display the "charisma" necessary to win their party's nomination with a centrist message like that?

 

[ShokWaveRider]

I'm forever looking to support candidates who will acknowledge the following: (1)That the people with the highest incomes generally contribute the most to the economy, at the same time that they benefit the most from government; (2) That they do pay the major share of taxes; and (3) That they should continue to pay the major share of taxes. But how is a candidate going to display the "charisma" necessary to win their party's nomination with a centrist message like that?

Not to change the subject from Retiring in Canada but I have a theory about this one.

Some time ago, early 90's or so, no please do not quote me on this one. I read some place that 80% of the population made under 27k per year household income. The top 2 - 3% made over
$100k and all the rest fell in between. This does not include retired slobs like myself that choose not to work and live an economical but comfortable existance.

About the same figures were allocated to net worth. The top 3 - 5% of the poulation had a net worth of $1m and the bottom 80% had less than $25k All others floated in between 80 - 95%.

Well based on this one can summise (sp) and this is a general observation. As with all things there are exceptions.

If you make less than and are worth less than the 80% group, you are most likely blue collar, low income, less educated, (drink and smoke heavily .... I added that for fun) I call these folks the 80%'ers.

Now at election time if you can get the 80%'ers too the polls you will have a landslide. Now, because they are 80%'ers there are a lot less no shows at poll time (Most likely Drunk or coughing up lung chunks.. Nooooo another joke. Not wanting to offend anyone here) So let's say 50% of them can get to the polls. That still leaves a majority.

So my theory is, right or wrong is that if you are not in that group, you are NOT being courted by the politicians in any way at all.

If the top 1% of the population all turned out to vote, they would have minimal impact on the results.

So, in jest, if you are NOT a cigarette smoking, bourbon drinking lowly paid, ex sanitary worker, now on welfare with some kind of resperatory ailment, you do not even have a snails chance of even remotely having an effect on the final election outcome.

8)

 

[haha]

What is the definition of a "middle class" American?

Hi Shok,

The way I use "middle class" is in the older sociological sense, rather than strictly income or asset based. To me, middle class means there is enough income or assets to have security, and education, health care, etc for one's kids. Plenty of "working class" people fit this definition in America. A Boeing or GM or GE worker, or a telephone lineman may be strictly working class in education, etc., but have a very middle class income and benefits package.

At the high end, I don't recognize upper middle class. These people are just consumer-earner slaves with a higher bandwidth.

Upper class to me is people who don't have to work, though they may, and they don't have to fret and plan like most of us ERs. Ski in Gstaad, sleep with who you want because you are too rich to be bothered by divorce settlements, eat what you want, drink what you want, etc. And I know, many of you are probably saying, well, I can do that now within reason. If you are upper class, you can forget about within reason. Anything is within reason!

The hereditary rich, top pro athletes, rock stars, real Hollywood stars, successful entrepreneurs, top officers of large corporations, successful surgeons, big entrepreneurial attorneys, and best-selling authors among others are all upper class in my book. Although these groups differ greatly, they offer freedom and choice not bounded by frugality.

Most of us have freedom and choice to a degree, but it is heavily bounded by the need to be frugal. If we can affect our security by buying a new 911, we aren't rich. An boy, would my security ever be screwed by buying a $125,000 car. In more ways than one I would guess.

JMHO,

Mikey

 

[Hyperborea]

Hello Hyperborea.  Re. your comments on immigration,
just curious.  What planet have you been living on?
Our government policies are a joke.  Our borders might
as well be non-existent.  And now, anyone who gets
in will be rewarded with my money.  I am not happy,
but I am resigned to this stupidity.

John Galt

I'm speaking as someone who's actually been going through the process personally. I understand that a lot of politicians use this issue as well as the "rising" crime issue (despite a falling crime rate) to radicalize their supporters. Border control of illegal immigrants and the entry of legal immigrants and visa holders is a seperate issue. Definitely crack down on illegal immigrants. The US visa holder or legal immigrant requires a job sponsor paying the prevailing wage. It is a long and arduous process. There are generally no self-sponsorship visas where candidates with high demand skills are allowed to immigrate (many other countries do this - often to bring in highly educated workers or skilled tradesmen).

As far as your "claims" about the monetary issue, you are wrong. Non-citizens are ineligible for welfare. They are eligible for Social Security to the extent that they have payed into the system (and that it still exists when they go to collect). They can claim unemployment but again only as far as they have paid into the system. Could you please provide me with the information as to how I can collect my share of this "reward money" that you speak of? I could certainly use this cash (if it exists) to speed my trip towards FIRE.

Hyperborea

 

[John Galt]

I'm not sure I have a lot of evidence to support my
positions on immigration. Mostly based on anecdotal
info, news and my gut (proven highly reliable over the years). Anyway, it may be difficult and arduous for
someone to enter the USA legally, but that aside, I
view our borders as totally porous and our governmental policies as a joke. It's bad enough that
we can't stem the tide, but we then coddle those who
manage to get in. They (illegals) should all be sent packing.
We'll never do it of course. Too non-PC don't you know?
And another thing. I do not buy the argument that most
of these people are doing work Americans won't do.
When those Americans get hungry enough, they will do the jobs. That's the way a free market works.
Unfortunately, we don't have one. I doubt that we will
in the future.

John Galt

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

As a california resident, I get a first hand view of the "work americans wont do". Perhaps thats not the right thing to call it. Doing work at rates americans wont do them at - - even if they're hungry - - might be more apt. Or maybe its work that wouldnt be done if people had to pay a living wage to have them done.

I lived in a well to do area where a lot of landscaping, housekeeping and nannying occurred with illegal immigrant labor for pennies on the dollar. I had a quote done for some area landscaping in back of my house and the landscaper quoted me two prices, one for regular full price labor and one for labor that he "would use discretion in finding lower cost laborers" (wink, nudge nudge). In this case I simply wouldnt have done the work at the higher quote, while the "discretionary labor" quote was incredibly cheap.

My live-in ex girlfriend also employed two housekeepers. Each came every other week. One was from a local company and did a nice job for $100. The other was clearly an undocumented russian worker and she worked twice as long for $50. If not for the lower cost, we would have only had the house cleaned every other week. If the russian woman had been available weekly, we probably would have dumped the legal worker.

I now live in the land of fruit and nut orchards. A large quantity of your produce from this area is picked by undocumented workers for dollars a day. If I drive by the orchards and look in the back at the barns and "back homes" that appear to be falling down between 6 and 7am, I see clumps of workers emerging that slept in them, unheated, overnight. If forced to employ 100% legal workers, your produce would cost so much that you probably wouldnt buy it.

Its not clear cut. There is a solid line below which work is either prohibitively expensive or undesirable to the american worker. On the other hand, there may be some crossing of that line and taking of jobs. On the third hand, I've rarely walked into a retail store or restaurant that didnt have a "help wanted" sign out, so anyone whimpering that they cant find a job or that the jobs they want to do are being taken away by immigrant workers, documented or not, is whining to the wrong guy here.

 

[John Galt]

This may be off topic but here goes. I have faith in supply and demand, the
marketplace, free enterprise, entreprenuerism, etc.
In my view, all of these are being killed off by
government heavyhanded management (or ineptitude) of all aspects
of our lives. This would include the handling of the immigration issue, but that's only a small part of it.
In a truly free and open market, with minimal
intervention by government, I would be happy to take my chances.
The whole system is so extensively managed now
that market forces are relegated to a minor role
(look at farming for example). Of course we all must
play the hand we are dealt, and if I was working
I would take full advantage of whatever government
rules/laws might benefit me. Delighted not to be
participating any longer. It makes
me sad even to watch from the sidelines.

Back to the "illegals". If they were not available to do
the work cheaply, and the work never got done due to
higher costs, then that work probably wasn't really needed anyway. Obviously that's true in the case of landscaping and gardening. If the owner wants his grass cut or a tree planted, he can do it himself.
Any liberals who worry about the plight of those who
live in other countries should feel free to send them money and build them houses. Just don't invite them
to come here.

John Galt

 

[unclemick]

My view of 'the free market' is that anybody ought to be able to go anyhere on this planet to work.

In 1966, I took engineering orientation for new hires - 7 green cards, 5 Americans. When I made a remark about 'foreigners' to my lead engineer - he started laughing - "You do know that I left the Sioux Res in WW II to fight for you 'foreigners' and you're ALL still immigrants in my book."

Free markets are crap unless they embrace free movement of labor - ie the whole loaf not just half.