TampaYankee

Really? Guess the old man cracked the whip.

Bravo is alternative enough to go with a show like that. I wonder how his past is affecting his real estate career. I guess not enough to rain on his parade if Bravo is interested.

Unless she leaves the country post-haste, I'm skeptical that it will last long before new trumped up charges are lodged.

Oz, I think you are going to get a lot of complaints about laundry bills.

I wanted to add this to the above comment. Since those earlier endeavors I have discovered tofu, TVP, in Chinese food. I love it because it is blank canvas that will take on the flavor of whatever it is prepared with, and there are some very tasty chinese dishes. Tofu is a great source of protein and of moderate cost, if you can find tasty ways to prepare it. There are potential problems with it if eaten to excess. It seems to have some phytonutrients that break down into estrogen or an estrogen-like chemical that behaves the same. I don't pretend to be an authority but google will provide more info on that aspect of soy protein.

Initial comments: Yay!!! Nice to have the full pic fall immediately on the eye. Dufficult to say whether the photo is right justitifed in the window or clipped on the right hand side. When you click on 'englarge' the right side of pic is lost. No scrolling to pick it back up. No 'undo enlarge' command, short of getting out of the thread and then back into it, it seems. Seems to be a mixed bag of real +'s and -'s. Maybe I'll arrive at definite choice on second round of comments.

I see you like guys with big bats.

First of all, good luck on your dieting endeavor. I appreciate how difficult it is. I have had my own numerous experiences over my lifetime. It has proven difficult, frought with many failures and some startling successes though temporary. Some of the failures were due to the diets, some to my failure to keep the longterm commitment required. My successes have all been with low carb diets. I did the Atkins when it first came out and lost 87 pounds in six months. I was never hungry after the initial break-in period of two weeks going through carb withdrawal. The first two weeks were tough as I felt seriously deprived with my diet. As I mentioned it passed after two weeks. I ate anything I wanted in the meats, fish, cheese regimen. I hadn't discovered tofu yet, TVP. Vegetables were completely eliminated the first two weeks after which I started salads and green vegetables like green beans, asparagus, brussel sprouts etc. It was a high protein, high fat diet. I ate plenty of ham beef chicken turkey pork as desired. Amazingly my cholesterol and triglyerides actually dropped significantly on the diet. Eventually, I allowed more starchy carbs to work back into diet starting a good time later and the weight slowly came back on. I repeated that success and ultimate failure a couple of more times in my life. I learned that for success it takes more than diet, it takes a lifestyle change that requires neverending commitment. For me it was weight training religiously that altered my metabolism. I maintained that religiously until the illness and ultimate passing of my mother which I allowed to put me off my physical training regimen. I never regained it but I did regain weight. I learned a few lessons along the way. I pass them along for what they are worth. Your diet will only succeed over the long term if you eat food that you enjoy and in amounts that never leave you feeling hungry or deprived. Pamper yourself and splurge as you feel the urge. Lobster, crab and prime rib as often as you can afford it. Avoid the potato, enjoy the salad and drawn butter. I find carbs to be addicting. The more you eat the more you want. There have been books written about that effect. I noticed it before those books appeared on the scene. I really believe in it. It is better to eat five or six smaller meals a day with a solid protein source rather than three or fewer meals a day. It keeps you from turning unneeded calories into fat and keeps your metabolism up. Digesting food increases metabolism. Undertake a regular exercise program whether weights, running, walking, aerobics, etc. It will increase your metabolism and modify your body weight set point. Some people do not tolerate the low carb diet well. That seems to vary among individuals and possibly with gender. The trickest part of the journey is settling into a maintenance level of carbs. There is temptation to just have a few french fries or the occasional baked potato. It is all to easy for those splurges to become more and more frequent. It is a slippery slope. Some of these observations my apply to your experience. Others may not as there is definitely variations among individuals with the effects of dieting. Good luck on your endeavor.

I have to admit I'm totally in the dark regarding your references.

I suspect your best chance is to save your money to hire rather than spend the years waiting. I doubt he will ever put himself on the expired date/markdown shelf. I also doubt he needs the money or the continuing adulation, and I suspect there are those who will always be willing to poney up as long as he wishes to accommodate them. Also, I suspect that he is probably semi-retired if not fully retired. I do know he was slowing down his travels a year or two ago. I haven't seen or heard much about him for a while and I am on his mailing list.

One of my problems with liberals, the biggest problem, is that when times are good and tax receipts are high they come up with programs that are nice for citizens or segements of society but less than essential. (My bar for essential is not impossibly high.) Then people structure their lives around those programs whether they are recipients of benefits or goverment employess or NGO employees that depend on that program for their job. When times go bad these programs have to be tanked causing problems for all involved -- sometimes unnecessary problems in that maybe employess would have had other, more robust jobs, and program recipients wouldn't have placed themselves in a position to be dependent on that program. This certainly does not apply to all programs in my mind, but there are programs created in good times that would not be considered in lesser times. In the long run it is more compassionate to be selective in creating government programs. That being said, there is good reason to create some programs that are necessary in good and bad times alike. I'll argue that elsewhere one of these days.

Is this an issue for anybody other than the tight-assed? Anyone who wants to send nude photos to another willing adult recipient is ok with me. It if gets leaked to the public, that's ok with me too. Serves as a good lesson for those who wish to gamble on the soundness of technology or the good graces of the recipient. There is really much more of import in this world to be outraged by. You know we live in a pretty safe and secure society when the public fixates on adults celebraties sexting and Linsey Lohan's latest gaffe.

I have no love for snakes. Before my childhood neighborhood was annexed into the city of Tampa decades ago, our US Mail designation was Rattelsnake FL. I remember both rattlesnakes and coral snakes being found in the neighbors yard next to a vacant lot. Ten years later, my high school biology glass would go on a field trip outside the building, across the street from the parking lot into a vacant lot where one of the students would catch a rattlesnake for exhibition to the class. ANY TIME I walked in the woods or vacant lots I had both eyes on the ground scoping out the ground for my next step. Best to remain stationary when you looked elsewhere. Spiders were an everyday occurence. Black widows only occasionally.

Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, Japan, Czech Republic, England, Scotland, The Netherlands, and Greece, for varying reasons, some you can guess.

Sorry Charlie, I accidently deleted your post. I am very sorry.

FDIC Prepares To Crack Down On Officials Of Failed Banks Due to coypright considerations please read this article at the LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-fdic-lawsuits-20101111,0,7606749.story It appears that the FDIC is going after dozens of former bank officers for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. The FDIC is demanding settlements or heading to court. We'll see if any 'settlements' are more than cosmetic slaps on the hand. I believe some hard time is called for in egregious cases for those who called the tune. We'll see.

It appears I watch more with the GOP The Menatalist Dancing with... NCIS Lie to Me Survivor (some seasons depending on other choices for that time slot) None of the others. I huddle with the Dems occasionally... Countdown... maybe once or twice a week of nothing else on The Good Wife (one of the very best on TV -- great writing) Breaking Bad ( when a marathon) None of the others.

The Reign of Right-Wing Primetime By James Hibberd, Hollywood Reporter via Reuters | Wednesday, November 10, 2010, 11:59 AM (HOLLYWOOD REPORTER) — We'll name a hit TV show, and you guess if it's more popular among Republicans or Democrats. First, "NCIS" — investigating military crimes on CBS. Safe bet conservatives love it, right? How about ABC's "Desperate Housewives" — a racy soap, female audience? Little more tricky. Now things get tough: CBS's geeky, atheist-friendly "The Big Bang Theory," Fox's megarated "American Idol," ABC's progressive Emmy winner "Modern Family." Which of these shows is favored more by Republicans? All of them. According to months of data from leading media-research company Experian Simmons, viewers who vote Republican and identify themselves as conservative are more likely than Democrats to love the biggest hits on TV. Of the top 10 broadcast shows on TV in the spring, nine were ranked more favorably by viewers who identify themselves as Republican. Liberals appreciate many of the same shows, mind you. But their devotion typically is not quite as strong as right-wingers, and Dems are more likely to prefer modestly rated titles. Like "Mad Men." The Emmy favorite has struggled to get a broad audience on AMC. It scores through the roof with Democrats (does anyone in Santa Monica or on Manhattan's Upper West Side not watch it?), but it has one of the weakest scores among Republicans. The same is true for FX's "Damages," Showtime's "Dexter," HBO's "Entourage" and AMC's "Breaking Bad." And it’s not like Republicans have something against cable shows: The GOP has plenty of love for "White Collar," "Pawn Stars" and "American Chopper." "The big shows with mass appeal tend to have above-average scores from Democrats and Republicans but with higher concentrations of Republicans," says John Fetto, senior marketing manager at Experian Simmons. "Looking at the Democrats' side, I don't mean to make light of it, but they seem to like shows about damaged people. Those are the kind of shows Republicans just stay away from." That also goes for the soft-rated, critically beloved "30 Rock." Its score is highly polarized in favor of Democrats. The only show on NBC's Thursday night comedy block that Republicans rate highly (slightly better than Democrats, even) is "The Office" ... which happens to be the one bona fide hit in the bunch. All this isn't to suggest Republicans are a perfect oracle of ratings success. Age certainly is a factor: Younger shows are more likely to be popular with Democrats, as is just about everything on The CW, as well as animated comedies like the Fox hit "Family Guy." Republicans vote strongly for reality-competition hits, but such popular youthful docusoaps as "Jersey Shore" and "Kourtney & Khloe Take Miami" are best appreciated by Dems. Likewise, left-wingers have a stronger affinity for certain veteran crime procedurals, including "The Closer" and "Law & Order," as well as anything that appeals strongly to women. But if you look at the list of broadcast shows that are Republican favorites, it closely mirrors the Nielsen top 10 list, whereas Democrats tend to gravitate toward titles likely to have narrower audiences. To Hollywood, the data suggest a potentially disquieting idea: The TV industry is populated by liberals, but big-league success may require pleasing conservatives. Was TV always like this? There certainly was a period during the mid- to late-1990s when the Clintons were in the White House and Nielsens were topped by NBC's young, progressive urbanites such as those on "Friends," "Mad About You," "Will & Grace" and "Seinfeld," along with liberal-skewing dramas like "The West Wing." But even back then during a progressive primetime heyday, there was plenty of Nielsen love for "Home Improvement," "Touched by an Angel" and "Everybody Loves Raymond." "Historically, the shows that have done better are populist, mainstream and give us confidence in our public institutions," TV historian Tim Brooks says. "For a while in the 1960s and early 1970s, shows started representing social rebellion, but broadcast quickly reverted to 'Happy Days.'" What has changed is the explosion on cable that has allowed networks to appeal to more specific viewpoints, from Comedy Central's "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart" to Fox News's "Glenn Beck." Moreover, if you're a liberal viewer in a major city (which typically correlates with higher education) and you have such titles as "Mad Men" and "Dexter" to watch each week, are you going to also be interested in seeing a paint-by-numbers crime procedural on broadcast or a laugh-track-boosted sitcom? On the scripted side, at least, the explosion of complex dramas on cable may have ceded some of the broadcast ground to what one might label Republican tastes. Of course, a broadcaster can attempt to program a cable-style complex drama, but then you'll likely watch the show die faster than you can say "Lone Star" (or, for that matter, NBC's longtime struggling "Friday Night Lights," which skews Democrat in Experian data despite being about small-town football in Texas). All of which brings us to … Alaska. "Sarah Palin's Alaska." TLC is set to make one of the biggest bets of the year by taking arguably the most polarizing figure in politics and giving her a reality show. The broadcast hits on Experian's index tend to have at least some bipartisan support, but the lower ratings bar set for cable shows mean they get away with appealing to only one side or the other. "Look at what happened in the election: A lot of people will tune in for Sarah Palin," says Gary Carr, senior VP at media buyer TargetCast. TLC president and GM Eileen O'Neill is likewise confident Palin will pay off. "I'm really optimistic," she says. "I think it could be one of our strongest shows out there. There's a lot of buzz." Based on Experian's data from last spring, TLC's audience isn’t any more Republican than most other cable networks. But the channel gradually has been adding more heartland-friendly titles one would expect conservatives to appreciate. In addition to Palin, there are several "breeder" titles like "19 Kids & Counting." The network also just ordered a limited series, "Homecoming," showing surprise military-family reunions. Given the utter ratings domination of Fox News, demonstrated again during this month’s midterm elections, an entertainment channel branding itself as right wing could be a big idea. O'Neill, however, says TLC is apolitical. "We're doing hearth-and-home, and if that's watched by people from various political perspectives, that's their choice," O'Neill says. "They're mainly shows that Middle America finds enjoyable. We have a fairly diverse lineup, with liberal talent and characters around the schedule." Would being known as a conservative-friendly channel be such a bad thing, though? "I don't think a political agenda is the first thing viewers put on when choosing their channel — except in the news area," she says. Ideological-skewing shows don't necessarily turn off advertisers, though. O'Neill says "Alaska" has sold very typically for a reality program, not particularly high or low. "Palin's going to be talking about Alaska: the Alaska salmon, the Alaska grizzly bear, the Alaska moose," says Aaron Cohen, executive VP and chief media negotiating officer at Horizon Media. "As long as she doesn't end up shooting the moose, I don't think it will become a controversial program." And that's key — controversy. Ad buyers agree an audience for a show can be 100% conservative or liberal, as long as the show's content doesn’t make advertisers itchy or risk putting them in the crosshairs of a boycott campaign. "There are people who are particularly polarizing to certain audiences, and advertisers will occasionally avoid that programming," Cohen says. "[but] as long as they are buying clients' products and services, I don't care if they're socialists." So, what have we learned today? We've learned Republicans like winners. The shows might be considered fluffy, but they're generally programs that make people feel good. If you're a broadcast network executive weighing whether to buy a show, you might ask your uncle who voted twice for George W. Bush if he likes the idea. We've learned Democrats are, depending on your perspective, discriminating viewers who prefer highly original, well-written series or are cynics who enjoy watching jerks. We've learned "Sarah Palin's Alaska" has the ingredients to be a hit, and one shouldn't confuse TLC for being Republican just because its friends are. Finally, we've learned that all this brain-baking data can only tell you so much. Because it is still possible for a scripted broadcast series to rank higher among Democrats than Republicans on Experian's index. It's even possible for that same program to top the Nielsen ratings week after week. Particularly if that show is "Glee." —Marisa Guthrie contributed to this report. See the original article at: http://tv.yahoo.com/blog/the-reign-of-rightwing-primetime--1740

Thankfully there still are a few states without income taxes. They deserve close scrutiny by the retired or retiring. I am unsure if any states give significiant tax breaks to retirees.

Thanks for pointing that out. I have placed a notice in the counterpart to this post in the Politics Forum. This is a case of: the early brid gets the worm.

A discussion of this report was previously started by MSGuy in the thread: http://www.maleescortreview.com/forum/index.php?/topic/5661-getting-a-handle-on-the-size-of-our-fiscal-problem/ Please make any comments in that thread to keep the discussion centered in one location. Thanks.

Deficit targets: Social Security, mortgage breaks Contentious targets: Deficit panel: curb Social Security, tax breaks, spending Andrew Taylor, Associated Press, On Wednesday November 10, 2010, 9:15 pm EST WASHINGTON (AP) -- In a politically incendiary plan, the bipartisan leaders of President Barack Obama's deficit commission proposed curbs in Social Security benefits, deep reductions in federal spending and higher taxes for millions of Americans Wednesday to stem a flood of red ink that they said threatens the nation's very future. The White House responded coolly, some leading lawmakers less so to proposals that target government programs long considered all but sacred. Besides Social Security, Medicare spending would be curtailed. Tax breaks for many health care plans, too. And the Pentagon's budget, as well, in a plan designed to cut total deficits by as much as $4 trillion over the next decade. The plan arrived exactly one week after elections that featured strong voter demands for economic change in Washington. But criticism was immediate from advocacy groups on the left and, to some extent, the right at the start of the post-election debate on painful steps necessary to rein in out-of-control deficits. The plan would gradually increase the retirement age for full Social Security benefits -- to 69 by 2075 -- and current recipients would receive smaller-than-anticipated annual increases. Equally controversial, it would eliminate the current tax deduction that homeowners receive for the interest they pay on their mortgages. No one is expecting quick action on any of the plan's pieces. Proposed cuts to Social Security and Medicare are making liberals recoil. And conservative Republicans are having difficulty with options suggested for raising taxes. The plan also calls for cuts in farm subsidies, foreign aid and the Pentagon's budget. The document was released by former Democrat Erskine Bowles, a former Clinton White House chief of staff, and Republican Alan Simpson, a former senator from Wyoming. Acknowledging the controversy involved, Simpson quipped to reporters: "We'll both be in a witness protection program when this is all over, so look us up." Said Bowles: "This is a starting point." Controversial or not, Bowles said serious action was demanded. He declared, "This debt is like a cancer that will truly destroy this country from within if we don't fix it." The government reported separately Wednesday that the deficit for last month alone was $140.4 billion -- and that was 20 percent lower than a year earlier. The red ink for all of the past fiscal year was $1.29 trillion, second highest on record, and this year is headed for the third straight total above $1 trillion. Current deficits require the government to borrow 37 cents out of every dollar it spends. Still, the plan was rejected as "simply unacceptable" by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., a top Obama ally. The White House held its fire. Said spokesman Bill Burton, "The president will wait until the bipartisan fiscal commission finishes its work before commenting." He called the ideas "only a step in the process." The Social Security proposal would change the inflation measurement used to calculate cost-of-living adjustments for benefits, reducing annual increases. It immediately drew a withering assault from advocates for seniors, who are already upset that there will be no inflation increase for 2011, the second straight year. The plan would also raise the regular Social Security retirement age to 68 by about 2050 and to 69 in 2075. The full retirement age for those retiring now is 66. For those born in 1960 or after, the full retirement age is now 67. Better-off beneficiaries would receive smaller Social Security payments than those in lower earning brackets under the proposal, and the amount of income subject to Social Security taxes would be increased. "The chairmen of the Deficit Commission just told working Americans to 'Drop Dead,'" AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said in a statement. From the right, anti-tax activist Grover Norquist -- whose opinions carry great weight among Republicans -- blasted the plan for its $1 trillion in tax increases over the coming decade. But Bowles and Simpson say eliminating costly tax deductions could bring income tax rates way down. For every $1 of new revenue, the plan demands $3 in spending cuts, and that was acceptable to panel member Tom Coburn, a Republican senator from Oklahoma. "If we do the cuts, I'll go for it," he said. "We may have to go for some revenues at some point." The entire commission is supposed to report a deficit-cutting plan on Dec. 1, but panel members are unsure whether they'll be able to agree on anything approaching deficit cuts of the size proposed. And even if they could, any vote in Congress this year would be nonbinding, Simpson said. "This is not a proposal I could support," said panel member Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill. "On Medicare and Social Security in particular, there are proposals that I could not support." The release of the plan follows midterm elections that gave Republicans the House majority and increased their numbers in the Senate. During the campaign, neither political party talked of spending cuts of the magnitude offered Wednesday, with Republicans proposing $100 billion in cuts to domestic programs passed each year by Congress -- but with no specifics. Wednesday's proposal would leave Obama's new health care overhaul in place, while greatly strengthening its cost control provisions, including a board with the power to make cuts in Medicare payments to providers. For most Americans with job-based health coverage, the biggest change would be to limit or eliminate altogether the tax-free status of employer-provided health benefits, which would provide a stiff nudge to force people into cost-conscious insurance plans. To deal with the rising costs of Medicare and Medicaid, the giant health care programs for seniors and low-income people, the proposal calls for limiting annual spending increases to no more than 1 percent above the growth rate of the economy. It outlines a series of strategies to achieve that goal, including changing provider payments to reward quality instead of sheer volume, demanding rebates from drug companies that want to participate in Medicare and raising cost-sharing for Medicare recipients while also putting in place a limit on their out-of-pocket costs. "It's a very provocative proposal," said a Republican panel member, Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas. "Some of it I like. Some of it disturbs me. And some of it I've got to study." Other proposals by Bowles and Simpson include: --Increasing the gasoline tax by 15 cents a gallon to finance transportation programs. --A three-year freeze in the pay of most federal employees and a 10 percent cut in the federal work force. --Eliminating all congressional pet projects, known as earmarks. The plan also calls for a major overhaul of both the individual income tax and the corporate tax systems with the idea of lowering overall tax rates, simplifying the tax code and broadening the taxpayer base. For individuals and families, the proposal would eliminate a host of popular tax credits and deductions, including the child tax credit and the mortgage interest deduction. However, it would significantly reduce income tax rates. The top rate would drop from 35 percent to 23 percent. The deduction that companies take for providing health insurance to their employees would be eliminated, but the corporate income tax rate would be reduced from 35 percent to 26 percent, and the government would stop taxing overseas profits of U.S.-based multinational corporations. Even with the dramatic proposals, the Bowles-Simpson plan would leave deficits of about $380 billion in 2015, the year by which Obama tasked the group with balancing the federal budget, except for interest payments on a national debt that now stands at $13.7 trillion. If the changes to Social Security are dropped, the deficit would be about $400 billion in 2015. Associated Press writers Martin Crutsinger, Stephen Ohlemacher, Tom Raum and Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar contributed to this report. See original article at: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Deficit-panel-leaders-plan-apf-3631076174.html?x=0

Deficit targets: Social Security, mortgage breaks Contentious targets: Deficit panel: curb Social Security, tax breaks, spending Andrew Taylor, Associated Press, On Wednesday November 10, 2010, 9:15 pm EST WASHINGTON (AP) -- In a politically incendiary plan, the bipartisan leaders of President Barack Obama's deficit commission proposed curbs in Social Security benefits, deep reductions in federal spending and higher taxes for millions of Americans Wednesday to stem a flood of red ink that they said threatens the nation's very future. The White House responded coolly, some leading lawmakers less so to proposals that target government programs long considered all but sacred. Besides Social Security, Medicare spending would be curtailed. Tax breaks for many health care plans, too. And the Pentagon's budget, as well, in a plan designed to cut total deficits by as much as $4 trillion over the next decade. The plan arrived exactly one week after elections that featured strong voter demands for economic change in Washington. But criticism was immediate from advocacy groups on the left and, to some extent, the right at the start of the post-election debate on painful steps necessary to rein in out-of-control deficits. The plan would gradually increase the retirement age for full Social Security benefits -- to 69 by 2075 -- and current recipients would receive smaller-than-anticipated annual increases. Equally controversial, it would eliminate the current tax deduction that homeowners receive for the interest they pay on their mortgages. See the complete article in the Politics Forum. http://www.maleescortreview.com/forum/index.php?/topic/5663-deficit-targets-social-security-mortgage-breaks/

Tax-Unfriendly States For Retirees by Kiplinger staff Wednesday, November 10, 2010 Some states offer attractive tax benefits for retirees. Not these states, however. Here's our list of Tax-Unfriendly States for Retirees, either because of higher-than-average taxes across the board, or for policies that don't exempt much retirement income from state taxation. Where's the best state for you to retire? For retirees living on a fixed income, state income and sales taxes can really eat into your nest egg. California State Income Tax: 1.25% - 10.55% State Sales Tax: 8.25% Inheritance Tax: No The Golden State is a retiree's tax nightmare. Although Social Security benefits are exempt from state income taxes, all other forms of retirement income are fully taxed. Californians pay some of the highest income taxes in the U.S. State and local sales taxes can reach 10.5% in some cities and towns, although food and prescription drugs are exempt. Real estate is assessed at 100% of cash value, but taxes are capped at 1% of value. Rhode Island State Income Tax: 3.75% - 9.9% State Sales Tax: 7% Inheritance Tax: No Retirees face plenty of tax shoals in the Ocean State. Social Security benefits are taxed just like they are by the federal government. Rhode Island nicks virtually all other sources of retirement income, too. Starting this year, capital gains are taxed as ordinary income, eliminating the lower capital-gains rate in effect before 2010. The nation's smallest state also has one of the biggest statewide sales-tax rates -- 7% -- although it excludes food, medicine, some clothing and precious metal bullion. The Tax Foundation says Rhode Island's median real estate taxes are the fifth-highest in the U.S. New Jersey State Income Tax: 1.4% - 8.97% State Sales Tax: 7% Inheritance Tax: Yes Its nickname may be the Garden State, but New Jersey is a thorny thicket for some retirees. Median real estate taxes are the highest in the nation, according to the Tax Foundation. There are a few bright spots: New Jersey does not tax Social Security benefits and military pensions. It also allows residents 62 or older with incomes of $100,000 or less to exclude up to $15,000 ($20,000 for married couples filing jointly) of pensions, annuities and IRA withdrawals. Groceries, medicine and clothing are exempt from sales tax. The state imposes an inheritance tax on the transfer of real and personal property worth $500 or more, but bequests to family members are exempt. Vermont State Income Tax: 3.55% - 8.95% State Sales Tax: 6% (localities can add another 1%) Inheritance Tax: No There are no exemptions for retirement income in the Green Mountain State, except for Railroad Retirement benefits (which are exempt in every state). Out-of-state pensions are fully taxed. Vermont exempts medical devices and prescription and nonprescription drugs from its 6% sales tax. But it imposes a 9% tax on prepared foods, restaurant meals and lodging, and a 10% sales tax on alcoholic beverages served in restaurants. Real estate taxes have two components: school property tax and municipal property tax collected by towns and cities where the property is located. Iowa State Income Tax: 0.36% - 8.98% State Sales Tax: 6% (localities can add another 1%) Inheritance Tax: Yes The Hawkeye State allows single retirees to exclude up to $6,000 of retirement-plan distributions from state income taxes, and married couples can exclude up to $12,000. It taxes a portion of residents' Social Security benefits, although it is in the process of phasing out the tax. Food and prescription drugs are exempt from state sales tax. Real estate is assessed at 100% of market value, and most property is taxed by more than one taxing authority, such as cities, counties and school districts. There is a small homestead tax credit for residents who live in-state at least six months of the year. See the full list of 10 Tax-Unfriendly States for Retirees See original article at: http://finance.yahoo.com/focus-retirement/article/111229/tax-unfriendly-states-for-retirees?mod=fidelity-managingwealth&cat=fidelity_2010_managing_wealth

Finally!! The Whitehouse shows a little leadership and some balls. The article about the Senate Dems folding on the repeal vehicle was posted in the Politics Forum.