Hi Jock Ewing, Being a furriner - I have no useful advice to offer regarding your Incentive funds, tax refund, etc. ... sorry about that. However - I'm with dadoes ... wouldn't it be a good idea for you to plan to reduce your tax refund to close to $0.00? Over the years that I've worked as a personal financial advisor, one of my major suggestions to clients and others was that they reduce their income tax refund to $0.00. Even at low rates of interest ... money in your bank account does develop a small amount of interest, during the year and a quarter to a half or so that some of it would be there. I'd like to suggest that, during the year while your extra large withholding is being held back and sent to the IRS as an interest-free loan, you check with your bank as to the amount of interest that the extra amount withheld would have earned. Then when you receive your tax refund, suppose you take an equal amount and, in the presence of your family, throw it into the street. Do you figure that they would, on the strength of that act, judge you to be a wise manager of money? Not only are you losing the small amount of interest (let's call it a "pittance") that that amount of money would earn if you'd taken it and put it into a separate and inviolable bank account ... it would have been available in case of need to deal with a major emergency expense. The IRS wouldn't have been too sympathetic had you, facing such a need, asked them to pay you a portion of that potential refund during that year. Which relates to another major suggestion that I made to my clients ... that they try to have at least 3 months' income available in easily accessible asset in case of an emergency. With six months', nine months' or a year's amount being built up in case of substantial unexpected need - including, in recent years, a possible extended period of unemployment. I shared with a number of them the information that I often did not have that on hand myself during my years of recent employment, as I held a "credit" (really "debt") card with, usually, zero or almost zero owing, with full amount paid off monthly prior to due date, plus a line of credit at the bank, usually sitting unused (with no set-up or maintenance fee if unused) which I could draw on to pay off the credit card balance due after use to cover an emergency. Actually, I recently signed up for another card, with 1.9% interest rate for 9 mos. on transferred balances, to use to purchase stock, should I so choose, as I would have to pay 5.00% currently on my line of credit but can buy the stock using the first card, then transfer the balance. But - the first card will charge interest at regular rate (about 18%) from the date that I draw on it till the date that it moves to the second card. By the way - I'm 80 and live on less than the income from my three pensions (one governmental with residence requirement, so housewives qualify, a second contributory related to my former income, and a third private contributory one) plus a small annual required amount of withdrawal from a tax-deferred retirement account. That income is much more secure that most employment income, as all that I need do to qualify is ... ... stay topside the grass! Which makes my pension income almost a guaranteed income (as long as the private carrier and the government stay solvent - and ours is a lot closer to that than yours). Do yourself a favour, Jock, please - set up a bank acocunt that you promise to leave alone except in case of extreme emergency ... and deposit the amount of withholding overcharge from every paycheque. With a name such as yours - you may have a drop or two of Scottish blood in your veins ... and you know their reputation for being careful with the use of money. Good wishes for what's left of winter, the spring - and the rest of the year. ole joyful

LOL Poohpup, I would be on board with that. Anyone who wants to sign up to cook, let me know :) dilly_ny and doc8404 we don't belong to a church. I guess we could call the closest church to us and see if they have any leads or allow job postings... oceangirl67, no it is a Miele. Does this disqualify me from hiring help? Is no one going to want to be my housekeeper now, LOL :( beekeeperswife I found two people who do the chef service and we may still go that route and have them do dinners at least. I just thought it would be nice to have one person who did everything. May not be possible or the best route to get the best food though... linelle, LOL, I've been eating raw cookie dough, brownie batter and cake batter for 20+ years now and I am still alive. I almost always have a bowl of batter or cookie dough in my fridge. My ex used to call it my "bacteria bowl." biochem101 we don't want to eat out. It is not very healthy. We want homecooked meals w/ all organic ingredients. We just don't want to make them! We also don't really have a lot of neighbors.The number of houses in our development is restricted and there are only 4 lots built on and they are large lots on acreage so it's not like just going up and ringing the neighbor's doorbell. We did ask our one neighbor next door who we met and she does her own cleaning. Thanks for the links lazygardens. We would need someone to specifically cook for us, not just a general delivery-of-meals b/c I'm very picky about foods I like and since DF is picky about ingredients and organic. But there are two people we found who customize the menus and come to the house to cook a week, or two weeks or a month worth of food at a time. It seems like that might be a better option but that leaves me to do breakfast (and maybe lunch) every day, which I didn't really want.

Update on my advice above to actually visit the country(ies) you are thinking of moving to, and our friends' advice that establishing foreign bank accounts BEFORE moving was something they should have done to avoid six months' worth of delays: The IRS is cracking down hard on ALL foreign investments, whether real estate, investment accounts, checking/savings. The penalties are huge, and although you can try to wrangle them down, it is a fact that taxpayers with smaller balance accounts are proportionately paying LARGER penalty fees than multi-millionaires who are deliberately hiding assets. The WSJournal had an article on this issue June 2014, but as it's subscriber only, I'll just post some excerpts: Expatriate Americans Break Up With Uncle Sam to Escape Tax Rules Record Numbers Living Abroad Renounce U.S. Citizenship over IRS Reporting Requirements WSJournal June 2014 U.S. offices abroad reported that 1,001 U.S. citizens and green-card holders had renounced their allegiance in the first three months of the year, according to Andrew Mitchel, a lawyer in Centerbrook, Conn., who analyzes Treasury Department data. That figure puts 2014 on track to top last year's total of 2,999 renunciations, he said, which was the most since the government began disclosing the data. Helping boost the exodus, experts say, is a five-year-old U.S. campaign to hunt for undeclared accounts held by Americans abroad….The tax dragnet has also swept up many middle-income Americans living abroad, prompting some to give up their U.S. citizenship. While people who renounce are NOT freed of taxes due for past years, they don't want to risk sizable taxes and penalties for them and their children in the years ahead, experts say. Nearly 8,000 taxpayers have renounced U.S. citizenship in the past five years, Mr. Mitchel found, compared with fewer than 5,000 in the preceding decade. ….U.S. officials launched their campaign after Swiss banking giant UBS AG admitted in 2009 that it helped wealthy American taxpayers hide money overseas. To avoid criminal charges, the bank paid $780 million to the U.S. and turned over information on more than 4,400 accounts, ending decades of Swiss bank secrecy. In May, Credit Suisse Group pleaded guilty to similar charges and agreed to pay $2.6 billion. Dozens of other Swiss banks are currently negotiating penalties with the U.S. Department of Justice, officials said. Following the UBS revelations, U.S. officials announced they would begin vigorously enforcing both new and long-dormant tax rules. Unlike other developed nations, the U.S. government taxes citizens on income they earn anywhere in the world. … The most common mistakes usually involved Americans failing to submit a form called the Foreign Bank Account Report, or Fbar. Since 1970, U.S. taxpayers have been required to file if they held one or more foreign accounts totaling more than $10,000 over the course of a year. Until the enforcement push, many Americans never filed an Fbar. The law is more than 40 years old, but "no one ever heard of it" before the crackdown, said Edward Kleinbard, a former chief of staff on Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation, and an expert in international tax law at the University of Southern California. Fbar penalties are as steep as 50% of the highest value of the account for each year no report was filed. The IRS fined one taxpayer for Fbar violations in four separate years, and a settlement reached this month in the case yielded $1.7 million in penalties, which was more than the account held at the time. …The typical taxpayer with less than $45,000 in undeclared accounts paid nearly six times the back taxes owed, while the typical taxpayer with more than $7 million in such accounts paid closer to three times their back taxes, Nina Olson, the National Taxpayer Advocate, an IRS ombudsman, found. … Scrutiny of Americans abroad will intensify, however, under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, or Fatca, which Congress passed in 2010. The law's main provisions, which take effect in July, will require foreign financial institutions to report income of their U.S. customers to the IRS, much as U.S. banks and brokers file 1099 forms. Middle-class Americans "face overwhelming problems when they try to engage in standard financial practices, such as having a small business, saving for retirement, investing, buying life insurance, and making wills and trusts," because of the laws governing assets abroad, said David Kuenzi, a financial planner with Thun Financial Advisors in Madison, Wis., who works with expatriates. The U.S. tax code, for example, doesn't recognize Australia's version of an individual retirement account, Mr. Kuenzi said. American taxpayers with these accounts must file at least two forms a year declaring the account a "foreign trust," and paying taxes on annual appreciation. The penalty for failing to file can be as much as 35% of both contributions and withdrawals each year, plus 5% of the assets, said Mr. Hodgen, the Pasadena tax lawyer. *********** Hope this info is of use to others.

I don't think it's a choice that should be made jointly. Children are entitled to be supported by both parents. If the ex is entitled to support (spousal, not child) then she should get it. If the terms of support are not indefinite, then it will eventually end. Some orders will continue forever until she dies or remarries. Whatever. But, if you rely on child support to live off, then 1) your child is suffering because child support is calculated with the assumption that both parents are going to contribute something. 2) Child support eventually ends when the child is emancipated.. apparently it's different in various states, but it DOES end (unless the child is incapacitated and it's ordered beyond the age of majority) When it ends, unless you have spousal support or some other source of income, you are pretty much stuck with no way to provide for yourself. It would suck to be in your 40's and looking for your first job. (My SD's mom is 35 now. Her older daughter will be 18 in 5 years and the child support she gets will end. Then what? She's never worked more than two months at a minimum wage job in her life.) Child support should not be adjusted so the CP can stay home. If she gets enough alimony to stay home, that's fine I guess. I still think she should work, even part time to contribute to the support of the child, especially if the child is in school. Younger kids that require daycare, it might be a wash and then it's better to have mom at home. when you have a child, you are supposed to contribute to the support of your child. If dad's GF sits around, she's only getting older and less employable. If she had a kid (by him or anyone else), I'd say she has no right to sit around doing nothing, she needs to contribute to her child's expenses just as much as the father. But, as long as dad is paying his obligations to you, what he chooses to do (by letting GF do nothing) is his business. I think he's a fool for supporting a bimbo and I think she's a fool for not doing anything with her life, but it's their choice, not anyone else's.