Jump to content
Chapala.com Webboard

Must have pension income or wait 4 years to go from temporal to permanente


Kevin K

Recommended Posts

Never lived Mediterranean. I was going by this article which also acknowledges how difficult it can be to employ general zones. http://geo-mexico.com/?s=climate&searchsubmit=

I find it interesting that many Canadians, especially very wealthy ones, gravitate to Palm Springs and San Diego when it is actually chilly (but clear) in the winter. I realize that suburban Tijuana does not carry the same cachet as Palm Springs, but it is a lot less expensive. San Diego, with it's many charms and conveniences, is less than an hour away.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Good discussion all around.

I'm well aware of México's desire to stem the tide of immigration from Guatemala and other points south, but somehow I doubt that there are many from any of those countries with pension incomes of US$2600 per month. The points I've made still stand: SS income of $2600 a month is exceedingly rare, pensions are becoming quite uncommon, and the rules exclude many with substantial wealth. Even someone with a decent Social Security income plus regular IRA distributions is excluded under the current rules.

In reality, just like the U.S., México wants the poor when they are convenient and doesn't want them when they're not. The coffee industry in Chiapas would collapse without illegal Guatemalan pickers just like the produce business in Arizona or California would without poorly paid Mexicans.

If you take a look at the policies for pensioners in Panama, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala and Nicaragua you get a good sense of just how uncompetitive the current INM policies are. If you can afford Spain or Canada your can afford France or Italy as well, and that is a very different sort of retirement and retiree.

bwhite 1948 your question about annuities is an intriguing one, and one that I hope Spencer and other local facilitators will look into. One thing I'm struck by in looking at the policies of many of the competitor countries I just mentioned is how many are willing to offer long-term visas in exchange for investments of relatively small sums in local certificates of deposit or bank accounts.

There is a kink in the logic about Mexico supposedly excluding Americans by using fiscal asset tests that appear too high.

Reality (US Census bureau and IRS data) says that 40% of American households of soon-retiring people (ages 55-64) easily meet the Mexican INM personal fiscal solvency standards.

Reality says that 40 million Americans qualify - right now - and between 2014-2030, to retire in Mexico with a Residente Permanente visa. 40 million Americans is a substantial level. these 40 million people live in households with average total assets over $400,000, and over $120,000 in IRAs, 401K's and savings.

40 million Boomers earned good educations, earned good salaries, and socked-away savings every week through paycheck withholding through the 1970's, 1980's, 1990's, and '00's.

The overall picture of American wealth is like Janus: 2 faced. The top 40% of Boomers are in fine financial shape.

In contrast, the bottom 40% of Boomers spent every dime they earned and borrowed even more of the 25 years of cheap easy-money liberally printed by the Fed.

Many Boomers carry no credit card debt. Ironically, the less fiscally cautious Boomers carry over $25,000 per month in household high-interest credit card debt.

Unfortunately, it's always been this way. Grasshoppers enjoy the sunshine, fly about, enjoy big vacations & tons of time with partying with friends, gobbling up the temporary fat-of-the-land, while the ants relentlessly toil away, saving, storing, living disciplined lives, working hard to create good futures for themselves and their children. When the tough times come, the grasshoppers wail and flail and live lives of highly noticed desperation, as the ants quietly enjoy their hard-won stored harvests.

Don't count out the 40 million resourceful and hardworking Ant-Boomers, because they do have the $$ to come and stay in Mexico as Permanent Residents. And yes, it's OK to feel compassion for the Grasshoppers who spent and enjoyed life by racking up debts.

Internet posters regularly wag about how it supposedly "is exceedingly rare" for Americans and Canadians to have the assets to meet INM fiscal requirements. Are 40 million pretty ordinary Americans really an "exceedingly rare" breed?

Maybe INM's policies are not as arbitrary as some say -since Mexico would seem to benefit from having Ant-Boomers here - while restricting access to grasshoppers?

Dumb like a fox?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The "fiscally responsible" Americans and Canadians I have met are almost uniformly socially conservative. They wouldn't be caught dead in Mexico, many Americans will not even travel to Canada. They want to be close to good hospitals (which they can easily afford), good law and order, and are mostly very big on family values.

You are missing an important part of the new immigration system, it is supposed to have a 'points' system, where level of education, levels of Spanish, and the mysterious "X" factor (would I want these people as neighbors?) all come into play.

Link to post
Share on other sites

WHAT? Apples, oranges and mixed fruit loop cocktail?

Let's go into this a little deeper: Most Lakeside residents, based on the voting pattern in the last few U.S. elections, are not very "conservative". However, they managed to watch their assets well enough, and they were open to new experiences enough to be "caught dead" (???) moving to Mexico and mostly relying on Mexican health care.

We can't profile our neighbors as "ants" or "grasshoppers" so simply. People are far too complex, which is why we have such a variety of attitudes in Lakeside......even on this web board.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a kink in the logic about Mexico supposedly excluding Americans by using fiscal asset tests that appear too high.

Reality (US Census bureau and IRS data) says that 40% of American households of soon-retiring people (ages 55-64) easily meet the Mexican INM personal fiscal solvency standards.

Reality says that 40 million Americans qualify - right now - and between 2014-2030, to retire in Mexico with a Residente Permanente visa. 40 million Americans is a substantial level. these 40 million people live in households with average total assets over $400,000, and over $120,000 in IRAs, 401K's and savings.

40 million Boomers earned good educations, earned good salaries, and socked-away savings every week through paycheck withholding through the 1970's, 1980's, 1990's, and '00's.

The overall picture of American wealth is like Janus: 2 faced. The top 40% of Boomers are in fine financial shape.

In contrast, the bottom 40% of Boomers spent every dime they earned and borrowed even more of the 25 years of cheap easy-money liberally printed by the Fed.

Many Boomers carry no credit card debt. Ironically, the less fiscally cautious Boomers carry over $25,000 per month in household high-interest credit card debt.

Unfortunately, it's always been this way. Grasshoppers enjoy the sunshine, fly about, enjoy big vacations & tons of time with partying with friends, gobbling up the temporary fat-of-the-land, while the ants relentlessly toil away, saving, storing, living disciplined lives, working hard to create good futures for themselves and their children. When the tough times come, the grasshoppers wail and flail and live lives of highly noticed desperation, as the ants quietly enjoy their hard-won stored harvests.

Don't count out the 40 million resourceful and hardworking Ant-Boomers, because they do have the $$ to come and stay in Mexico as Permanent Residents. And yes, it's OK to feel compassion for the Grasshoppers who spent and enjoyed life by racking up debts.

Internet posters regularly wag about how it supposedly "is exceedingly rare" for Americans and Canadians to have the assets to meet INM fiscal requirements. Are 40 million pretty ordinary Americans really an "exceedingly rare" breed?

Maybe INM's policies are not as arbitrary as some say -since Mexico would seem to benefit from having Ant-Boomers here - while restricting access to grasshoppers?

Dumb like a fox?

What dog do you have in this fight?

Does your Mexican wife work for INM and she is responsible for the new rules?

The people with the kind of money that INM is requiring now are not moving to Mexico. They don't need to and don't want to.

It is odd that you are the only person who defends the new INM financial rules and everyone else knows the rules are self defeating. Read how many people have moved here and have acquired temporary or permanent status. Almost all are people who were grandfathered in and not new applicants. New people have dropped significantly and I bet only a small fraction of the new applicants are retirees. Most are foreigners who are younger and working in Mexico.

You must not have property you will want to sell someday or don't want restaurants and businesses around all year but you are in a heavy tourist area and probably don't care. We care where we live.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reality (US Census bureau and IRS data) says that 40% of American households of soon-retiring people (ages 55-64) easily meet the Mexican INM personal fiscal solvency standards.

Care to link your source, here? I am looking at data from 2013 that says the *median* savings for the 55-64 age group is $12,000 (US). This doesnt strictly preclude 40% having $120,000 or more ... but it certainly does make it darned unlikely. (For both statements to be true, 40% would have $120k or more, 10% would have between $12k and $120k, and 50% would have between $0 and $12k. That would make a black-diamond ski slope look gentle compared to the wealth inequality graph for the tail end of the boomer generation.)

http://www.nirsonline.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=768

It uses the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances to analyze retirement plan participation, savings, and overall assets of all U.S. households age 25 to 64, not just those with retirement account assets. This is important because some 45 percent, or 38 million working-age households do not have any retirement account assets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posters seem to be finding "facts" to support opinions which can be polar opposites.

Assuming that Lobita's figures are on track, the real question for those asset challenged boomers will be how to survive at all, anywhere, in their later years. Does anyone remember stories of the dire straits for many during the Great Depression of the 1930's? Tent cities, aka "Hoovervilles"? The thing that saved the economy turned out to be the horror that was World War II. Now what? The latest figures I've seen are very depressing re the wealth gap.

The haves can live anywhere on Planet Earth. The have-nots are in deep trouble. Will either of them move here? Would they want to? Will Mexico change it's policies? Is there any real advantage to Mexico in allowing poorer retirees to live here? I can see disadvantages; i.e. a larger population of older people who require more health care than youngsters do, and have less money to pay for it. Who pays? We know who.

At some point in the coming decade, the point will be proved one way or the other by reality: who moves here and who stays in the States or goes back there from here. The Powers That Be who made up the rules aren't listening to any of us, and neither are the potential immigrants. Agendas are personal, and varied.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a lot of people will still be working into their seventies. However, remember the demographic factors: The size of the retirement age population is going to swell so rapidly and so much that although the "haves" are fewer percentage wise there will still be a bunch of them.

And I contend that there are very few places that offer the combination of climate, amenities and access back to the U.S. that this one does. Try driving home from Panama or Thailand. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a lot of people will still be working into their seventies. However, remember the demographic factors: The size of the retirement age population is going to swell so rapidly and so much that although the "haves" are fewer percentage wise there will still be a bunch of them.

And I contend that there are very few places that offer the combination of climate, amenities and access back to the U.S. that this one does. Try driving home from Panama or Thailand. :)

The big problem will be enough jobs to go around for those who want/need to work in their seventies. It's a bear trying to get a decent job in your fifties.

And yeah, that drive home from Thailand is the pitts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The people who have less than $2000 a month pension stay in the U.S. or move to Central or South America. With $1000 or more a month they can live quite well in countries other than Mexico.

If they have less than $1200 a month in pension, and they stay in the U.S. where they qualify for Medicaid that pays 100% of their medical, they can receive Food Stamps, help with housing, transportation, etc. Poorer people are better off in the U.S. than living here.

It is not anything like the Great Depression. There are many safety nets now that help the poor and that money circulates back to the haves. Ask Walmart what it thinks about Food Stamps being cut back.

I really dislike the snobbery of some people who think if someone did not or could not save enough for his retirement that he is less of a person. How much money did Jesus have? Buddha left his riches. Gandhi wasn't a rich man. Very few great people in history had wealth and most were poor.

Many people had careers interrupted due to health, injuries, families, etc. Many women couldn't work enough hours to accumulate wealth and rear children. People who planned to retire to Mexico are now looking at other countries because they are not rich enough to live in Mexico. The other countries will benefit greatly from those foreigners.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"I really dislike the snobbery of some people who think if someone did not or could not save enough for his retirement that he is less of a person." (Joco)

Who said that?

And BTW, right now, there are many thousands of homeless people all over the U.S. When I moved here over ten years ago, the streets of San Francisco were "home" to many. Parks were filled. I hear it's worse these days.

Anyone who's lived awhile knows that getting rich doesn't involve goodness. In fact, it can seriously get in the way.

The best way to get rich is to have a rich family to start with. A real boost up the ladder. After that, brains, luck, a special talent, exceptional good looks, the right friends and utter ruthlessness can help.

I don't agree that $1200 a month, even with free medical care, food stamps and housing help would get a retired person much of a life in the states. I have a email pal who had a bad run of health luck and wound up in that situation. Life is grim for her.

I think you could have a better life in Mexico on that. Most Mexicans don't have that much income, do they?

That is one of the big complaints I've been hearing about the new regulations. It's way more money than most Mexican families have to live on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The people who have less than $2000 a month pension stay in the U.S. or move to Central or South America. With $1000 or more a month they can live quite well in countries other than Mexico.

We (2) live well and are content on less than $1000 a month in Mexico. A lot depends on what is important to you in your daily retirement life. We are here for climate (depends on the months), easy drive back NOB, and some health care .

Link to post
Share on other sites

"I really dislike the snobbery of some people who think if someone did not or could not save enough for his retirement that he is less of a person." (Joco)

Who said that?

And BTW, right now, there are many thousands of homeless people all over the U.S. When I moved here over ten years ago, the streets of San Francisco were "home" to many. Parks were filled. I hear it's worse these days.

Anyone who's lived awhile knows that getting rich doesn't involve goodness. In fact, it can seriously get in the way.

The best way to get rich is to have a rich family to start with. A real boost up the ladder. After that, brains, luck, a special talent, exceptional good looks, the right friends and utter ruthlessness can help.

I don't agree that $1200 a month, even with free medical care, food stamps and housing help would get a retired person much of a life in the states. I have a email pal who had a bad run of health luck and wound up in that situation. Life is grim for her.

I think you could have a better life in Mexico on that. Most Mexicans don't have that much income, do they?

That is one of the big complaints I've been hearing about the new regulations. It's way more money than most Mexican families have to live on.

Our condo is in a 55 and older large 3 building complex centrally located in San Diego. I know of no one living there [except one lady], including some renting and getting gov´t. assistance with the rent ... 1/3 of their income and the gov´t. pays the rest that have only $1000 US per month, but I presume there are some renting and owners that do. I also realize San Diego is expensive.

The one nice 75+ year old rents there, retired for 17 years with SS from a McDonalds salary and I presumes her SS is under $1000 US but her 2 children give her some money every 2 or 3 months. The ones that smoke and drink have SS plus a pension from a job they had for many years. I presume the average SS is about $1100 per month and profesionals about $1600 to $1800US per month but they usually own the condo, not rent. Some had divorces later in life and some are single by choice for decades or widowers or widows. If they are all telling the truth. It can be done on about $1400 US per month it appears there with no gov´t. assistance and medicare or VA medical. Whoever stated pensions are rare are correct in this case. Most used up their IRAs and 401 Ks by age 70 or less, several by buying a new car, their last car.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As several here, including Joco and Jim Bowie, have pointed out, one can live comfortably here on income levels that while they would be very tight indeed in most parts of the U.S., are still multiples of local middle class wages.

The issue here is México excluding, whether unintentionally or intentionally, folks like Travis or ourselves that are far from being indigent but who do not have and will not have PENSION income of $3000 a month. It doesn't matter what other assets you have - which makes Snowyco's numbers (which are wrong anyway) irrelevant.

For the sake of comparison, here's a link to current requirements for Costa Rica. CR is way more restrictive than Panama or Ecuador, has similar weather and a very similar cost of living to Lakeside, is a vibrant functioning democracy (to a degree that both Mexicans and Americans could only dream of), has good health care, etc. and is in every way a viable competitor for both retiree and tourist dollars:

http://www.residencyincostarica.com/residency.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Multiples of middle class Mexican wages? I know dozens of middle class Mexicans and a single wage is about on average $14,000 pesos per month or $1100 US, not near a multiple [2X] of what those claim to live on. It would be a multiple [2X] of upper working class wages. It would be mulitples [ 3X, 4Xs etc.] of working class wages. Where did you get your statistics? IMO

Link to post
Share on other sites

And there are older folks who only get $450-$950 per month from Social Security and only had access to 401k or IRA programs in the last few working years. So, many of the assumptions written here are just guesses, and may be very inaccurate. Those older SS and pension payments have not kept up with inflation; not even close.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Multiples of middle class Mexican wages? I know dozens of middle class Mexicans and a single wage is about on average $14,000 pesos per month or $1100 US, not near a multiple [2X] of what those claim to live on. It would be a multiple [2X] of upper working class wages. It would be mulitples [ 3X, 4Xs etc.] of working class wages. Where did you get your statistics? IMO

What "middle class" is - or whether there even is one, on a national basis, remains a topic of some dispute, as this piece from the Economist (which cites 10,000 pesos per month as being at the upper limits of middle class) indicates:

http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21587828-politicians-and-statisticians-hunt-middle-class-middle-worth

In my post I referred to LOCAL (which means Lake Chapala) middle class wages, which are obviously far less, though maids and gardeners here often make as much as schoolteachers. Even if we use your figure Alan a couple here spending $3000 U.S. a month is still spending three times - a multiple - of a middle class income, and of course many spend far more, plus buy real estate, employ locals at inflated rates, etc.

RV's point meanwhile gets us back to current U.S. realities: few have pensions, and almost no one has social security or pension income in the range required by the new INM rules.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the sake of comparison, here's a link to current requirements for Costa Rica. CR is way more restrictive than Panama or Ecuador, has similar weather and a very similar cost of living to Lakeside, is a vibrant functioning democracy (to a degree that both Mexicans and Americans could only dream of), has good health care, etc. and is in every way a viable competitor for both retiree and tourist dollars:

Kevin, Mexico is not afraid of losing us, they are just afraid of gaining those coming from the South. Viable, I think not, as the drive is just too much to return NOB.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What "middle class" is - or whether there even is one, on a national basis, remains a topic of some dispute, as this piece from the Economist (which cites 10,000 pesos per month as being at the upper limits of middle class) indicates:

http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21587828-politicians-and-statisticians-hunt-middle-class-middle-worth

In my post I referred to LOCAL (which means Lake Chapala) middle class wages, which are obviously far less, though maids and gardeners here often make as much as schoolteachers. Even if we use your figure Alan a couple here spending $3000 U.S. a month is still spending three times - a multiple - of a middle class income, and of course many spend far more, plus buy real estate, employ locals at inflated rates, etc.

RV's point meanwhile gets us back to current U.S. realities: few have pensions, and almost no one has social security or pension income in the range required by the new INM rules.

Another economist´s views the same INEGI data in another publication and concludes the monthly wage in 2013 to be considered entering middle class, not upper limit as you stated, to be considered to be middle class, is $14,000 pesos per month per household.

INEGI stated $12,400 pesos to be inside the middle class and under $14,000 pesos is going to a lower class.

"Income of 14 thousand pesos in 2013 to be middle class: INEGI. With Oscar M Beteta

June 13, 2013

Related News

Report INEGI growing middle class in Mexico

Although the National Institute of Statistics and Geographic reported that the middle class until 2010 reported growth reaching 42.4 percent of households, Rodrigo Negrete, a researcher at the Department of Integration, Analysis and Research INEGI, reiterated that it does not shown to be an absolute majority.

Although the National Institute of Statistics and Geographic reported that the middle class until 2010 reported growth, Rodrigo Negrete, a researcher at the Department of Integration, Analysis and Research INEGI, reiterated that this does not represent to be an absolute majority.

Moreover, Rodrigo Negrete explained that, according to reports obtained for 2010 to be in the middle class family's monthly income must exceed 12 thousand 400 pesos; currently just under 14 thousand.and for the upper class, at least 60 thousand pesos of income and and entering a lower class, without going to a lower class, less than 14 thousand pesos. "This calculation is an estimate that was developed with a INEGI own methodology then no data have been obtained in other countries with this methodology. "

"And for the upper class, at least 60 thousand pesos of income and lower class, without going to a lower class, less than 14 thousand pesos" I am having trouble with this part in translating it.

http://www.radioformula.com.mx/notas.asp?Idn=331878

Who is more accurate?

RV´s point is well taken but what about retires with a paid off house as "used" to be the goal of all working and middle class and above Americans and Canadians when I worked. That might have faded in some áreas and some generations after mine, I think, but don´t know. I do understand later in life divorces will mess this up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Social Security is a pension.

There are many countries in Central and South America that have the welcome mats out for retired foreigners. We cause no problems, cost nothing and we contribute a lot. We help to build businesses and employ the locals.

It might be impossible or hard to drive to the U.S. from Central America but a person could save enough to pay airfare and not worry about driving.

If Mexico only wants the financially better off foreigners, well good luck with that. They might vacation in Mexico but most would rather not live full time in Mexico.

I don't know how Mexico got the idea that Mexico is the only game for retirement, thought it could attract people with deep pockets and get rid of the average people but that plan is not paying off. The amount of retired people moving here is way down. Mexico lost out on billions of dollars by making the financial requirements ridiculously high.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...