Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
David… thank Marcia for the additional info… and read my comments in “The new immigration bill” thread… more questions… and confusion! But what else is new with life in paradise! LOL
Hey Enduro… Some interesting comments.
As for the CAJA requirement… that issue really needs some more clarification. Should folks that currently (or apply before the new rules hit) not have to enroll the saving could be rather sizable. I’m not sure that buying a private plan would be that much more expensive for folks with sizable pensions that are forced to pay a percentage income after the new rules become effective.
As for David’s comments I found the original 13% of income a bit over the top…. I’m glad we got a little bit of clarification… but the idea that somehow the CAJA folks are able to sit and “budget” your expenses and use net income to determine a tax is almost as unbelievable. Are these numbers (household budget) subject to annual review or update should expenses change? Is there an inflation factor added in? How about folks that are maintaining homes in both CR and the US (or elsewhere)… are these expenses taken into account in the budgeting formula? And since everyone’s living expenses and lifestyles are different (many by choice) it really doesn’t seem a fair or equitable way of taxing folks. So for example if I live in a castle, drive an expensive car, leave my lights on all the time, run the AC day and night, and eat nothing but expensive cuts of meat I pay less for CAJA because my “net” income is lower than someone that lives Pura Vida? Seems too easy to manipulate the numbers for folks inclined to do so. Perhaps a flat CAJA fee for retirees would be the simplest and fairest way to put this new requirement into effect. Should the new required income be $1000… perhaps a flat tax on that amount would work. Allowing folks to “limit” their taxable income for CAJA via living expenses just doesn’t seem fair.
I’d really like to see how this system is going to work. Once again it seems the “new improved” system is creating more questions than answers.
Two interesting ideas… If one was to relocate to CR and obtain residency under the current proposed rules which (as David has stated) require one to join CAJA and pay a 13% tax… and then either have a child in CR or marry a Costa Rican… would you still be forced to pay the tax? And how would adopting in CR effect these rules… so much time and so many angles to play! LOL
The more you look at it the more the PT angle makes sense for folks that are limited to calling CR home… and we’re not just talking about folks with “issues”!
Grd1063… I’m not sure your numbers are correct… this is from the ARCR.net site detailing the current requirements….
>>>>>Rentista Residency in Costa Rica
* Requires proof of US$1000 per month income for at least five years, guaranteed by a banking institution, OR a US$60,000 deposit in an approved Costa Rican bank. Now requires additional income for dependents.
* Must remain in country at least 4 months per year.
* Can claim spouse (additional $1000/mo) and dependents under 18 years of age (additional $500/mo).
* Cannot work as an employee.
* Can own a company and receive income.Source: The Association of Costa Rica Residents<<<<<
Still make sense to wait since the current rules would seem to cost $3000/month (Husband/Wife $1000/each + 2 Minor children $500/each… total $3000) compared to $2500 with the new rules… a savings… but nothing huge! Then there’s still the CAJA issue and it’s monthly cost!
Edited on Aug 24, 2009 13:40
It would appear that rentista status is the only option available to you. It might make more sense waiting for the new rules with the size or your family. There is still the issue of the new rules requiring enrollment in CAJA (CR Social Medical plan) which require some clarification… that might cost you another $325/month in addition to the new $2500/month deposit (60 months) for the status. With the rentista status you’ll be required to deposit (or show) $150,000 in a bank deposit to apply. It’s best if you speak with a attorney that can guide you through these new rules…
Best of luck!
Edited on Aug 23, 2009 14:27
Bogino….That “fight” was over many years ago… and the current path is pretty much cut in stone… those calling the shots in Washington are unwilling to make the tough choices needed to turn this ship around…. and those electing them are either too foolish to see the coming disaster or unwilling to suffer the pain that fixing this mess will require! Either way the unknown might be a better choice then what many of us see as the future in the US.
Edited on Aug 22, 2009 08:46
Just an after thought… if this forced enrollment in CAJA as a requirement of residency and a 13% tax are on the level…. there are going to be a LOT of very unhappy folks in CR… both current residents and those considering it! Oscar and the boys have found a nice way of taxing the incomes of expats without calling it a tax. The more I look at it the more I believe there needs to be some clarification as to the new rules.
And if the same 13% CAJA tax is applied to rentista filers… that’s another $325/month ($2500X13%) folks will have to come up with!
Edited on Aug 22, 2009 08:17
David… thanks for the great information! I’m hoping we can get some clarification as to how much folks will be paying if they are now forced to enroll as part of their residency. It would seem that the deal that ARCR has (or had) makes a BIG difference for folks with higher pension incomes. And as you point out, there really is no way of limiting your stated income should it be from one source such as a pension. In my situation the difference would be over $700 per month between being able to enroll through ARCR as opposed to paying 13% of income…. and that’s a rather large difference! Going the PT route might be a better option with a private CAJA insurance plan that would no doubt cost MUCH less. And hope that CR (as you’ve pointed out) doesn’t suddenly crackdown on PTs!
It might also make more sense, if the ARCR deal is no longer available, to purchase a life annuity that provides the required $1000/month income (rather than using a pension and/or SS income) and apply using that as your income source for residency. And we don’t yet have an answer as to how folks using the rentista route will be as far as CAJA enrollment and their cost.
While the increase in required income from $600 to $1000 makes good sense… forcing folks into CAJA with possible rates very close to what are charged in the US does not. And folks that currently have residency and are now required to enroll in CAJA and pay 13% of income may very well NOT be able to afford to live in CR even though they are not subject to the new increased monthly income requirements.
Keep us posted… I’m sure there will be some changes and clarifications on this topic.
David,
Can you tell me where you’re getting this 13% of income requirement for CAJA? It would seem that folks with larger pensions and incomes will be hit rather hard. And does this apply to folks that have their residency already that will now have to enroll in CAJA… and how about folks that are living or apply under the rentista status? How are they enrolled in CAJA and how much must they pay? I’m thinking $780 per month is a bit high for medical benefits in Costa Rica… and would the 13% cover both a husband and wife?
Edited on Aug 21, 2009 22:13
Well David it seems you’ve made my argument for me in most of what you’ve said! LOL Bad programs milking us dry… and no effort to address them. Budget and accounting people and an administration that have no true idea of cost or how to fund this monster…. But yet you still want to trust these same fellows to now take on the BIGGEST (sorry the cap lock key was feeling neglected)… most EXPENSIVE… and least THOUGHT OUT government social program Uncle Sam has ever attempted.
I too have been listening to the President… and all this underlings… what they’re saying and NOT saying. With all their talking points and sound bites I was hoping for one simple website that would explain this new health plan and how it will work and be paid for… but instead it seems they’re more intent on spending $24 million on an ad campaigns that will push this, and I’m quite sure will be lacking the HARD (sorry it was nagging me again to be used) information on execution and cost that I, as well as many other folks, are asking for! Take a look at this!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090819/pl_politico/26240
Funny…. the US government managed to put together a great website (Cars.gov) to explain the “Cash for clunkers” program that allows you to see if you’re eligible… how the program works… what the rules are… what type of car qualifies for trade in… which qualify for purchase… how much money is in the program… and a ton of other useful information. Yet have we such a wonderful resource to explain this proposed health plan? I’m guessing the $24 million in ads will be shells of reality… showing sick kids and dying old people… any thing that gets public opinion rolling along with the agenda!
Just direct me to a resource as clear and comprehensive as the “cash for clunkers” site and I’ll be happy to look it over and form my opinion as to this proposed program. Isn’t health care more important than taking some clunkers off the road and putting some new ones on?
You’ve pointed to some great successes… and we’ve discussed some real disasters… just give me the honest and complete truth about this “program” before you try to shove it down my throat!
Edited on Aug 19, 2009 21:07
Sure David… now you tell me your concerns about this health care plan end with your time on this rock!!!! LOL
As for the mobile services I was talking about… they’re County services, NYC has their own that are used to provide similar services. As for your comment…
“Are you saying that the ongoing medical needs of inner city folks as well as the 47,000,000+ uninsured are covered by these types of services? Nobody else seems to think so.”
Perhaps you should read the news and see the response that Obama and the crew are getting at the town hall meetings they’re running trying to float this plan… it seems I might not be the only one concerned about Uncle Sam running the show. There’s a large and very vocal movement for change… but NOT the kind Uncle Sam is talking about… and this isn’t the fringe players… these are working folks that have real concerns, as I and many have, about the idea that we should ignore Uncle Sam’s failures and allow him to take on another challenge that our (well my) grandchildren will be paying dearly for!
As for paying for the proposals… please tell me EXACTLY how it’s going to be paid for… you see David I’ve made a career out of listening to people, what they say and don’t say… and have become rather good at hashing out the TRUTH… and I’ve heard a LOT of proposals on how this is going to be funded… and the next day a change in how that’s going to be achieved… can you perhaps point me to ONE central source of the Obama plan that CLEARLY and COMPLETELY explains to simple little me how this program is going to be paid for?
Yes I know… a tax on the rich… and savings here and there… fees charged to employers… but I WANT INCOME PROJECTIONS, Charts…. graphs…. expense projects… a BUSINESS PLAN…. just like if I was a small business at the local bank trying to get a loan or line of credit! To date I have not seen ANY of this during the Obama proposals! Lot’s of vague proposals… concepts… ideas… all of which seem to change from day to day! You have to know David that when the income isn’t there, there’s two ways Uncle Sam fixes it if he wants to keep the plan alive… he raises TAXES…. or starts PRINTING MONEY… both of which have gotten us into the mess we’re in now… and I DON’T think that’s going to work much longer, our creditors are getting very nervous! And when Uncle Sam looses that SS tax money he’s been living off and has to start paying it back… watch out!
I have to guess some egghead in government has the “business plan” with all the documentation I’m talking about…. right? If such documentation would be required for the local shoe store to get a bank loan to buy inventory I think it’s only fair the American people deserve the same and have a good idea what they’re getting themselves into, don’t you?
Hey Soldier… Thanks for joining the conversation David and I are having! I guess we all know that there’s a serious need for health care reform in the US… the real question is do we want Uncle Sam running the show… and from where I sit and from what I’ve seen and experienced the answer is NO!!! I’m sorry that Uncle Sam has failed to live up to the promises he’s made to you and other veterans for the service you’ve provided to this country, I pretty much knew that. David had pointed to the VA medical system as an example, one with which folks had a high satisfaction rate… I felt otherwise and that it is yet another example of a FAILED system the government is throwing money into without providing quality service! Thanks for chiming in!
Perhaps we should look at Uncle Sam’s current programs… Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA health system before we allow an organization with a record of FAILURE from taking over yet another function. Perhaps these should be fixed before we start spending money on another program for which we have NO PLAN…. and NO MEANS TO PAY FOR IT!
As always a great reply David! I’m aware that health care consist of more then emergency room visits… and our county does have medical clinics which those without insurance can use for the preventative care you speak of… also our local hospitals back in NY have mobile units (specially equipped motor homes) that do prostate screening, breast care exams, blood donation and screening as well as other services throughout the area. They park the units on an announced and posted schedule at various locations… banks, post offices, supermarkets and other well traveled areas. And I never see a line of folks waiting!
I know we agree on the problem, and the need to fix it. Might we agree that there needs to be a clear PLAN and METHOD explained on how we’re going to make it work and fund it BEFORE we just jump in and HOPE it all works out in the future? With all that natural gas and petroleum you saved for your grand kids it would be a shame if they can afford neither because they’re being taxed to death paying for yet another government plan that fails because of poor planning!
Edited on Aug 18, 2009 19:37
Nice idea David… but but do “they” really lack coverage at the moment? I’m not sure what your experience is with the uninsured but I can tell you from mine in NY that NO ONE (with or without insurance) is missing out on medical treatment. On Long Island NY it’s a simple call to 911… an ambulance arrives a short time later for whatever ails you… and it’s a lights and siren ride to the hospital for treatment no matter if you can pay for it or NOT! In fact the patient’s BILL OF RIGHTS by law is posted right in the emergency room in both English and Spanish explaining that you CANNOT be denied care for any reason (lack of insurance, ability to pay). I can tell you stories that would have you spinning about the “medical” conditions folks use this system for. And how NORMAL folks would have NEVER used the system for MOST of the reasons “they” go to the emergency room!
The idea that folks are dying in emergency rooms waiting for, or being denied treatment just isn’t happening in my experience.
As for your challenge…”So here’s my offer to you and everyone on this forum and elsewhere who shares your sentiments: You agree not to seek medical care for any condition whatsoever ’til “they” have medical care too and I’ll believe that your heart is where your words are. This generous offer extends to all your families as well.”
Perhaps we should extend your challenge to include NOT being allowed to retire to Costa Rica until EVERYONE can… or OWNING a nice home until EVERYONE can… or driving a nice new CAR until EVERYONE can….or enjoying the fruits of years of hard work and sacrifice until EVERYONE can (even if they chose to NOT to work hard and sacrifice)… are you willing to give up all the nice things you have to level the playing field? It’s a nice idea to provide for others… no matter how much they may or may not deserve it… but are YOU willing surrender all the things YOU have to give it to someone else?
Since medical coverage for everyone is so near and dear to your heart I don’t see why you’d have a problem giving up all the “extras” (Home in Costa Rica, New car, rental properties, pension and so on) to provide the basic “right” of health insurance you champion… it only seems fair doesn’t it?
After all.. to the folks without insurance you’re living like a king! LOL
Edited on Aug 18, 2009 15:07
Once again David I enjoy your points and your ideas! You’ve always been one to see the big picture and think out all the angles…. so don’t EVER sell yourself short saying there’s quite a list of folks smarter than you!
I’m just very concerned when a president and a party seek to push through a major government program on a Friday afternoon before a month long vacation. There needs to be some REAL discussion on this agenda and ALL parties need to be heard.
I, as most folks opposed to the current rush, know there needs to be changes made in the way the health care system works in the US… but as much as I know there needs to be change…. I refuse to allow Washington to push through another government program that’s well intentioned… but unfunded and ill conceived. All I want are answers to the basic questions that apply to any situation… Who, what, where, when, and HOW is it going to be paid for? We’ve heard lots of talk about this program NOT raising the (income) taxes of anyone making below $250,000… but do you think that’s reality? Remember where SS and Medicare (FICA) taxes started… and the promises made about their levels… and take a look at the REALITY of where they are now! Over 12% between employee and employer for SS… and Medicare is also out of control! I also don’t really think the current government medicare or medicaid programs are very well run or efficient.
And does Washington these days seem concerned about the viability of SS or Medicare for the next generation (or even those retiring in the next few years)… the answer seems to be NO! Once again I don’t feel that letting Washington off the hook for the problems with the programs they run now and allowing them deeper into our pockets it reasonable or the right thing to do!
