Hi again dolcemia, I am pleased that your husband has a retirement plan ... and that you have one, as well. At what age can you begin to draw on them? Usually they are set up to begin at age 65 ... can you choose to begin drawing before that? For example, in Canada, the Federal pension, to which we all contribute, which began over 40 years ago, intends to have us retire at 65, with full pension (if we made full rate of contributions ... which you don't, if you earn anything near minimum wage, meaning that low income hurts, even into retirement). If I choose to retire earlier, they won't allow me to do it before age 60, and for each 2 months that I retire before age 65, they reduce my pension by 1% ... which means 6% per year, and if I chose to retire at age 60, there would be a 30% reduction. On the other hand, if I choose not to retire until after age 65, I get a bonus of 1% for each 2 months extra that I work and contribute, 6% per year. Is your pension set up so that as inflation continues over the years, does the amount of your pension increase, as well? If there is a provision for it to increase due to inflation, it's almost certain that it won't increase at the same rate as the rate of inflation, but less ... which means that it won't cover as many expenses as the years go by as it would earlier. They call that a pension being indexed for inflation. Is your husband's pension indexed to inflation? ______________________ Do you owe money on credit cards, that you don't pay in full each month when the bill arrives? Is it/are they mainline cards, or cards issued by stores? Do you know what rate of interest that you pay on those unpaid balances? Usually on mainline cards it's about 15 - 18% annual rate. Usually on store-issued cards it's up around 25 - 28% annual rate. If I loaned you $100. and said that you owed me $25. per year for the use of it, would you consider me some kind of rascal? May I ask you a question ... have you heard the saying, "A penny saved is a penny earned"? Do you believe it? If you say that you agree, I'd like to disagree, in terms of much of the stuff that, when you buy, you might be able to save a dollar on the purchase. When you consider most of the stuff that you buy ... when you prepare your income tax, can you deduct the price of it as you calculate the amount of tax that you owe? For much of the goods that most of us buy ... the cost is not deductible. Which means that we have to buy it using money that we've already paid income tax on, i.e., after-tax money. Let's suppose that you could save $1.00 on a purchase that you make. If you're in 25% marginal tax rate (i.e. the rate of tax that you pay on your top dollar of income), that means that you have to earn $1.33 before-tax, then pay 33 cents tax, leaving yu with $1.00 in hand to go out to buy that item. So .. if you save $1.00 on the cost of the purchse ... you've saved $1.333 of extra earnings, right? Plus... if you pay that 28% on a store-issued credit card, most of the things that you bought when using it were not tax-deductible, right? Which means that, if you're in 25% income tax rate, you have to earn $36.00 pre-tax income, then pay the 25%, or $9.00 income tax, leaving you with $27.00 ... oh,oh ... not quite enough to pay that $28.00 owing. Drat!! When you buy a car (or do you lease) do you pay cash for it, or do you finance it? If finance, do you shop around to find the best rate of interest and terms? Are you a member of a credit union, or are there some in your area? Sometimes they offer lower rates, or better terms, than the usual market offers. Do you try to pay the loan off as soon as possible? I recommend that. Be sure to pay off the loan quite a while before you need to replace the car. Then keep putting away that amount of money (or nearly as much) each month, building a fund to enable you to make a far larger down payment on the next car. It would be best if you can pay the full cost in cash ... that lets you put the amount of interest into your own pocket that you'd been paying earlier to a lender. I like keeping my money in my jeans over paying others to borrow theirs. Do you have an emergency fund? That is, if you had no family income for 3 months (or, even better, 6 months ... or, better yet, a year) would you have anough money available that you would still be able to live fairly comfortably? It's important to have such an emergency fund, in case unexpected expenses crop up ... including if we get laid off from work, especially if permanently, as your husbnad is dealing with at the moment. I recommend learning how money works - it's an interesting hobby. And, know what? It pays well ... very well. As I said earlier .. pay off your store-issued credit card balances fully when they come in each month ... save yourself 35%. And that saving is ... guaranteed. Where else can you earn 35% on your money ... guaranteed!?!? Good wishes for making your money work harder for you than for the other fellers! ole joyful

Hi again, all you Canadians, Suppose, when the bank stock was at about $105.00, I'd decided to borrow $40.00 using those certificates as collateral (a lot more that the $4.00 original value!), and having certificates issued for the new shares and giving them to the bank to add to the collateral. When the original stock dropped to $68, a drop of about 1/3, (thanks almost entirely to that dratted U.S. sub-prime mortgage debacle - smells a lot like a hot shot lender-generated scam, to me) ... that would have been a real "loss" had I lost my nerve and sold it. If I'd used that $40. to have bought more stock of the same bank (not a good idea - best to own a variety of issues), that $40. stock value bought with the loan, having also declined by 1/3, to $26, would, added to the $68 of the original, produce $92.00 total current value ... more than double the $40.00 that I'd borrowed. So I'd have avoided a margin call on the loan, i.e. bring in some money to reduce the lender's loan to below 50% of total asset value, or more shares to add to the worth of the collateral ... by late today, tomorrow at the latest! And it would have been a lot wiser had I had stocks in about three not only actual companies, but types of industry, used as the collateral: less risky ... or, rather, spreading the risk over a wider area. Also, I still owed the bank $40. .. but the asset that it had bought was now worth only $26. By the way: note this aspect of calculating. The stock price dropped from 105 by a third to 68 ... but it's gotta gain by a half to break even: 68 + 34 = 102. It's a quality stock - it'll recover. I've got time to let it happen ... well, if, at 79, I don't, the executor of my will does. Neither of my major beneficiaries are under any more pressure to liquidate under pressure than am I. The pressure would be to pay income tax, about a year or slightly more later ... and there are other assets at close to real value to take care of that. Or, if everything were undervalued, she could use some of them to borrow to pay the tax, repaying the loan after recovery ... but the trouble with that would be that the loan interest wouldn't be deductible. Further to the rule of 72. At the price of $68., the stock price has doubled from the original $4.00 or so about 4 times: 8, 16, 32, 64. When one divides the 41 year period by the number of doubles, or 4, one gets 10.25, i.e., it took 10.25 years on average to double. Divide 72 by 10.25, one gets 7.02: the growth rate of the basic asset was about 7%. On the other hand, if you know the rate of interest that you expect a certain investment to achieve and divide that number into 72, say, 6%, you'll get a result of 12 ... it'll take your investment about 12 years to double (with no allowance for erosion of the income by tax, or of the value of the asset by inflation). In addition to the approximately 7% growth rate that my bank shares achieved, over the years they paid me about 3% in dividends, for a total growth rate of 10% or so: not too shabby ... especially when it's tax-advantaged, deferred and also tax-advantaged. And the annual rate of dividend grew since my last report to $3.48, which I think that they will make a strong effort to maintain, despite the drop in value of the stock. If they drop it back somewhat, it'll likely hit the stock price for a while, but I won't cry too hard. Earlier, at $105., or 4.5 doubles (8, 16, 32, 64, 128), dividing the 40 years by 4.5 gives 8.888, which is the rate of growth that the stock developed. Add about 3% or a little more of dividends that the shares paid over the years, and you get a total growth rate of close to 12%. I can handle that ... especially when I remember that I pay a low rate of tax on all of those dividends. I use the full amount earned by the loan-purchased stocks, plus part of that earned by my original cash amount invested to pay the interest on the loan, which interest is deductible (as it would not be were I to borrow to purchase an RRSP) and I think that you may get an idea of the reason that I prefer non-RRSP investing in a number of situations. Especially since, were I to cash out at either $105. or $68., after I deducted the $4.00 of original investment, I'd get half of the difference with no tax liability. But every dollar that I withdraw from an RRSP (or successor RRIF after age 69) ... gets added directly to income, and taxed at regular rate. If you can't avoid tax, defer it. But if you can pay some tax now and not only arrange for ongoing income to be taxed at a low rate ... but defer a substantial portion ... and then arrange for a major portion of it to be tax-free ... so much the better. So ... I think that sometimes it makes sense to pay some now, in order to arrange major tax benefits ... not only ongoing ... but later, as well. Not only that, when you have a major portion of your assets in an RRSP ... ... supposing that you need some money during those years of living and want to ask your lender for a loan. Can you use your RRSP assets as collateral for a loan? Officially, no ... unless you have a very accomodating lender, who'll make one without collateral (since they already carry your RRSP). Some will - some won't. Even so, the rate of interest might be higher. Good wishes for increasingly effective management of both your income and your assets. ole joyful P.S. Have you read my thread somewhere around here that outlines how to borrow to invest at almost no net cost (without making any allowance for possible increase in value of the invested asset)? Plus another asking which ordinary person/investor gains from the erosion in value of one's investment by inflation? o j

No need for that particular primer, or oil based primer at all at this stage. The main purpose for the original Kilz would be stain killing. I would use the Fresh Start acrylic primer.

it amazes me how many "professionals" do not know that tile on mesh (like penny tiles) need to be staggered. I'm a DIY'er and I know that. WTH is wrong with people???!? To the OP; the white grout fix looks much better. Is it perfect? no. Can you live with it? That is up to you. At this point you have to decide if the fight, time, and money are worth it. Yes, he should pay for the cost of new tile and re-do it but if he decides not to then you have to find and pay someone else to do it on your dime then turn around and sue him in small claims court. If you win...good luck collecting. It's just all a big flipping headache that you shouldn't have to deal with! I think most people just choose to live with it so these subpar professionals stay in business and go on to their next victim. Maybe if enough people hold these so called "professionals" accountable they will either get out of the business or get better. Alas, I don't think that will happen. Keep us updated.