Mexico Connect
Forums > General > Living, Working, Retiring
 


soft drink

Mar 2, 2004, 9:20 AM

Post #1 of 10 (936 views)

Shortcut

    

Important Editorial, part two.

  |
Whatever happenned to OUR messages regarding The New York Times???

http://www.nytimes.com/.../opinion/02KRUG.html

I'd like to know.

Thanks you.

S. D.



jennifer rose

Mar 2, 2004, 9:26 AM

Post #2 of 10 (928 views)

Shortcut

    

Re: [soft drink] Important Editorial, part two.

  |
Those posts were deleted, because they did not pertain to the focus of this board.


TomG

Mar 2, 2004, 10:41 AM

Post #3 of 10 (906 views)

Shortcut

    

Re: [jennifer rose] Important Editorial, part two.

  | Private Reply
They were very much to the point of this site, although maybe a better fit under the Live, Retire, etc. Forum, if one wanted to be really categorical about it. It's fairly simple: if discussion about methods to have your Social Security checks most accessible to use in Mexico fits here, then (this isn't difficult), discussion about whether Social Security checks will be forthcoming for retirement in Mexico fit also.

He shouldn't have posted the whole article copy and paste maybe. And he should have made the contextual relationship for discussion - to clarify intention.

Dollar based retirement funds are the foundation of a high percentage of foreigners living in Mexico.

Here is my response:

There are a few other articles reporting essentially the same data, and a muffled report coauthored by an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. All say have a similar message: that we USAers are going to hit the wall in the economic future, and retirees are at the epicenter of it.

What would be interesting is to know what hedge thinkers are thinking. How are posters hedging their bets? Property in Mexico? Trusted friends in Mexico? Pooling assets with their kids in order to create insular mini-dynasties.

While Rolly hasn’t addressed the subject directly he is one of the contributors who I think is best situated for a safe full-life life (some folks are married in here and as such may be equally as safe). It seems Rolly is as good as family based on a very long lasting personal cross-border friendship that began with knowing an immigrant.

Mexico is a great place to lie in a hammock and escape, while you dish out dollar based pesos to buy comforts and pay for dreams. Mexico is romantic and poverty can be romantic when you are on the outside looking in. But would regular Mexican folks rhapsodize romantically about gringos if the gringos didn’t have surplus money? Would they be carinoso to old broke gringos? Mexico is not a good place to project weakness. There are various types of weakness: one can be poor and lack power, or physically weak, and so forth. One can be physically weak and compensate with money or mental force to maintain a total balance of power. When your general balance tips to weak, you are headed to poverty is my guess. All prior assumptions about life in Mexico would be less meaningful in this context.

Mexicans hedge a poor public sector with lack of reliable services like public safety, public hygiene, and so forth with a network of protection of family, friends, and contacts. The systems of walls, locks, bars, jagged glass, etc. speaks of distrust. In general Mexicans don’t trust each other. When we told the Mixe neighbor, Francesca, about my friend in the USA who has a 20 acre apple orchard and sells his apples by setting them out unattended on a large table on his front lawn with marked prices per pound, a scale, and a locked farmer’s mailbox screwed to the table with a money drop slot on top so you can pay – well her eyes went round. She couldn’t believe it. She said if that happened in Mexico the apples, money box and table would be all be gone.

If the USA hits the economic wall on SS will we have walls of distrust? Will the USA develop into a place of family networks for survival? Where will be the safe place to retire on either side of the border?


johanson


Mar 2, 2004, 1:35 PM

Post #4 of 10 (876 views)

Shortcut

    

Re: [TomG] Important Editorial, part two.

  | Private Reply
huh?


RickS

Mar 2, 2004, 3:53 PM

Post #5 of 10 (849 views)

Shortcut

    

Re: [johanson] Important Editorial, part two.

  | Private Reply
I think it's called "intellectualizing", Pete, dut someone else might have a better definition.....


thfarrell


Mar 3, 2004, 8:16 AM

Post #6 of 10 (786 views)

Shortcut

    

Re: [TomG] Important Editorial, part two.

  | Private Reply
Hi...

-- I didn't get to read the original messages regarding the editorial.

-- Much of the editorial does seem irrelevant to this board.

But discussions of SocSec income and its future are relevant. Would a politician ever try to sell this: "would you rather we cut SocSec benefits for all, or begin saving SocSec by limiting payments to those who still love the US enough to live here?" You bet. Ready for a "proof of residence in the US" test for SocSec... maybe combined with "homeland security" programs?

Politicians (and anyone who thinks about it, I'd say) are scared to death of our apparent future: very large deficits combined with an entitlements program that cannot sustain itself as currently setup. There just aren't enough coming-of-age workers to pay the taxes required for the SocSec program in years to come, unless ________ (no one wants to fill in the blank).

So, if you've got enough money not to care about the SocSec issue, then I guess you could call all this "intellectualizing". For many people, though, it's a topic well worth thinking about. And given the number or people on these boards who ask about "making it in Mexico if my income is X", many folks here do/will rely on SocSec to make a Mexico move possible.

Most of the discussions here are practical. I hope that doesn't mean they all should be.

tom
---
"Beauty is in the i of the Beholder"
(Julia Mandelbrot)


D.G.

Mar 3, 2004, 8:51 AM

Post #7 of 10 (776 views)

Shortcut

    

Re: [thfarrell] Important Editorial, part two.

  | Private Reply
If the problem is not enough people to pay into social security, I wonder why we are discouraging Mexico from sending its youth here to work and pay taxes. Seems like the old bracero program may be revisited by politicians. Only I hope this time, the employees get their money back when they are ready to retire.


(This post was edited by D.G. on Mar 3, 2004, 8:52 AM)


smokesilver

Mar 3, 2004, 7:57 PM

Post #8 of 10 (711 views)

Shortcut

    

Re: [D.G.] Important Editorial, part two.

  | Private Reply
This is exactly one of the two main reasons that no real attempt is being made to stem the flow of 'illegals'. I am not advocating anything here just commenting. As the government continues to grow & devour dollars the monster must be fed. The only way to do it is inflation(for you & me) and more purchasers of goods & services i.e. more population. Wonder where this will lead to?


MariaLund

Mar 3, 2004, 9:51 PM

Post #9 of 10 (693 views)

Shortcut

    

Re: [D.G.] Important Editorial, part two.

  | Private Reply
The problem is definitively not "not enough people who pay". Social Security had huge surpluses and still would have them if they weren't used for "pork" by the various administrations, but most blatantly by Dubya. And Greenspan's statement is widely considered only as a diplomatic attack on Dubya's extreme fiscal irresponsibility, and not really at cutting social security benefits of either baby boomers or already retired.

Cutting social security of retirees living outside of the USA would likely undo all the savings on Medicare not being available outside of the US border. However, it might happen - who said governments are smart or logical? Just look at Dubya ( sorry, but I despise this guy and EVERYTHING he stands for... and I worked as a consultant for him when he was a governor of Texas and did not see it coming - shame on me.) Some European governments pay their retirees different level of benefits depending on where they live: highest benefits levels for retirees staying in their home country, second tear of benefits for those living within EU and a third - lowest - benefit levels to those who live anywhere else. So it is possible USA government might think it would be kosher in the USA, too.
Vivere non est necesse, navigare necesse est!


smokesilver

Mar 4, 2004, 7:14 PM

Post #10 of 10 (629 views)

Shortcut

    

Re: [MariaLund] Important Editorial, part two.

  | Private Reply
Dubya & Friends want to 'privatize' social security & medicare..to what end? They just gave the 'drug' companies a hugh windfall all of which will come from medicare beneficiaries. Subtract the social security taxes from the budget & the DEFICIT is mind boggling. Even Dubya couldn't smoke & mirror that away. HE WAS NEVER IN ALABAMA.
 
 
 
Search for (advanced search) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.4