Annual Pathway Financial Report: Fill & Download for Free

I’ve been an expat in four different countries since my adolescence. My answer if for those who wish to legally emigrate i.e. to live and work indefinitely. It’s easiest for single, male, educated, wealthy, multilingual migrants who are able to blend in among locals, and those who have studied or have a network of contacts in place.If you are with family and/or your spouse children are adult of a non-local language, it is that much harder logistically, socially and culturo-linguistically. It would probably be less challenging to migrate to a country with a high percent of foreign-born residents (Australia, NZ, Canada, USA, UK, France, Belgium, NL, Portugal and Spain); although Germany and Sweden also have a high percent of foreign-born residents, that is a recent phenomenon and reception and integration may be a novel phenomenon for all involved.A. Focus on the administrative/bureaucratic challenges in emigration to another country (barring asylum)In reply, there is no universal answer as each country has individual requirements. In general, you have can enter into countries for permanent residence under several pathways/regimes, including:Employment offer by local company, unable to find a local with skills that you possess (Middle-age is usually better for senior positions)Family unification and marriage to a local (no age effect)Investment-based residency (no age effect but may be costly)Retirement (non-working) residency (no age effect but you may be too young or not rich enough!)Extraordinary personality in science, arts, sports, entertainment etc. (Nobel-class/Olympic/Oscar level, that is)Extraordinary service to the foreign nation (e.g. rescuing its citizens from a terrorist attacker)(Following diagram is a 2016 survey of top emigration destinations by all nationalities, not only Americans)You will find that category I (employment) is only possible if you are in a profession (usually business or science) where you have in-demand skills. Few young people would find that type of employment, so your age is a good one if you are a senior executive or engineer or scientist with a good CV.Investment-based residency may be relatively inexpensive in developing countries but very expensive for “fiscal paradises” and developed countries. A version of this is creating a company that employs locals - also a potentially costly solution in some countries.Retirement residency would mean you are independently solvent and would not be able to work in the host nation. Developing countries actively seek such residents.“Extraordinary” individuals are usually not a category applicable to most people.B. Don’t forget the cultural and tax consequences of expatriation - not to be underestimated.As a US taxpayer, you would still have to file US income tax yearly PLUS informational reports on foreign accounts and businesses. Even if there is no tax owed due to double taxation treaties, you would still have the obligation and expense of filing taxes AND financial reports annually.Becoming a resident of another country would mean being liable for their taxes, some of which are very high, especially estate taxes; so plan very carefully with an appropriate estate planners with experience in both the US and the host country.Assimilating into another culture takes time, effort and desire. There are always drawbacks in addition to advantages and the adjustment can lead to depression if you don’t have a cultural/personal attachment locally.You should start visiting candidate countries and spend increasing time there, living as locals, learning the culture and language. Speak to expatriates, both well-integrated and mal-adapted.

Absolutely not. Invariably this tired old (and patently false) notion is bandied about (more often than not) by talking heads on conservative talk radio and paid pundits on FOX (read: FAUX) ‘News’ Network (usually in the shows they call ‘commentary style’ so they can get away with lying to your face and calling it an “opinion” segment.No, Social Security is not now nor likely would ever likely to become in danger of bankruptcy. Yes, it’s true that there are more people retiring now (at a faster rate) in relation to how many new potential taxpayers are being born.Clearly, some adjustments need to made (and some already have been with a progressively increasing maximum age of retirement that will be 70.4 years of age when I retire in ~10 years time. The most important thing politicians of BOTH parties (but far more often it is those with an [R] in front of their names on TV who do the biggest “borrowing” from Social Security) need to keep their freaking paws OFF Social Security money entirely. Don’t tie it to the debt, or the deficit (it is fully self-supporting through employee contributions as is Medicare and doesn’t add a dime to the deficit) and it is INSURANCE (the government promises every worker throughout their lives that if they pay “X” % of their salaries throughout their lives into a fund for “X” # of years, that when they are ready to retire, the government will make certain you at least have enough money to become familiar with the best tasting cat foods and sleep under the highway overpass of your choice. (a bit of sarcasm, but not (too far) from the truth). NOTE: Do have a retirement Plan you build on throughout ALL your working life, you will need it in *addition* to Social Security contributions.Here is an article on Bill Moyers blog written a little less than three years ago:The Myth of Social Security as 'Ponzi Scheme' - BillMoyers.comResurrecting Another 'Big Lie': The Myth of Social Security as 'Ponzi Scheme'In these pestilent, perilous times, when the very idea of distinction between truth and falsehood is under siege, it’s more critical than ever to keep a sharp lookout for destructive false analogies. Without an anchor in provable fact it’s dangerously easy to get taken in by them. So I am particularly exasperated by a sample dished up by scaremongers, namely that the Social Security program, our rock of security and stability for an aging population for the last 80 years, is a Ponzi scheme — a swindle designed to cheat Americans out of their money with false promises.This especially ugly lie resurfaces periodically like the Loch Ness Monster and the Abominable Snowman and is just as devoid of proof, but at least those fakes are harmless. The same can’t be said of the presumed equality between Ponzi’s scam and Social Security, which was aired during last fall’s campaign by such eminent would-be Republican candidates as Chris Christie, Rick Perry, Mike Huckabee and Rand Paul in the gang scrimmages that passed for debates. In condensed form, here’s why.Charles Ponzi was undeniably a swindler. In 1919 he was a resident of Boston, an apparently well-liked, clever and gregarious “businessman,” with a secret past that included two felony convictions and imprisonments, one for check forgery and the other for a role in a scheme to smuggle illegal immigrants from Canada into the United States.In the start of the boom year that we call the Roaring ’20s he launched a new con, promising investors in a securities firm that he set up, that he would double their money in 90 days or increase it by half in 45. Skipping the details, which can be found easily in many search engines, it involved speculation in foreign postage stamps, which in itself was legal. Palpably impossible promises were not. All the same, suckers lined up in their thousands, as Ponzi himself blossomed out with a lifestyle appropriate to a millionaire, supposedly thanks to his personal investment. So did some of the early dupes — the catch being that Ponzi was paying them and himself with the deposits of later starry-eyed dreamers of overnight riches that he had not yet used to buy more stamps. Ponzi was, however, caught in his own trap of clearly false promises. There was no possible way that the profits on any investment could earn such mountainous rewards in so short a time. Ponzi soon found himself sinking deeper into debt. Financial reporters and officials smelled a rat and before Ponzi could take the money and run, if that was his intention—and even if not - he was arrested in the summer of 1920 on mail fraud charges and sent to prison for 14 years.Bear that demonstrated fact in mind. Though the cheat itself may have predated Ponzi, his name clung to it, and by definition a “Ponzi scheme” is a criminal enterprise to fleece the gullible.Now consider Social Security. It was launched by act of Congress in 1935, in the pit of the Great Depression. It is a completely self-funded program fed by a mandatory payroll tax, each worker and employer putting in a percentage of the worker’s salary. The annual retirement benefits vary and are paid basically out of the sum collected from that tax. If, after the paying the benefits, there is a surplus left in the Treasury, it goes into a dedicated fund, popularly called a lockbox, from which future benefits are paid.And here is a bedrock reality: The system works. Through the years, despite sweeping changes in the economy, the size and longevity of the population, and changing ratios of retirees to still active workers, all of which required adjustments, Social Security has paid the beneficiaries in full and on time. The first one was a Mrs. Ida May Fuller, who got a check for $22.54 on Jan. 31, 1940. A little less five months later, on June 14, I was enrolled in the program on my first job as an office boy. The minimum wage, which I received at that time, was $12 for a 40-hour week. I still proudly show my original signed card. Not only does the system work but the evidence is overwhelming that public opinion from all points of the political spectrum is rightfully determined to preserve it.Now think for a moment about what the tea party-dominated Republicans are actually saying: That this government-run public insurance program which for more than two generations has allowed seniors to live their post-working lives with a modicum of dignity and security is identical with a genuine criminal enterprise. It’s beyond outrage. It is a super falsehood spewed out of the publications of well-funded right wing think tanks and the mouths of well-paid right-wing radio and television liars.What they claim is that the lockbox is a fraud, an accounting trick. It’s filled with government bonds, which are simply IOUs to ourselves, and will decline in value as the national debt, swollen by “entitlements” like Social Security and Medicare (but not gigantic military expenditures) mounts toward the stratosphere. They point to borrowings from it under certain legally permissible circumstances as “raids” to fund such sinful extravagances as programs to feed hungry children, fund research into curing treatable diseases or provide temporary unemployment benefits to working families whose jobs have been outsourced or automated.The “Ponzi scheme” lie folds neatly into the prediction of the doomsayers that the growing number of retirees combined with the shrinking of the work force is leaving the yearly intake less than the outgo and will soon cause the system to go broke, ultimately leaving current and future beneficiaries — the old and the young as high and dry as Ponzi’s victims.The math is not wrong. But it is a problem that can be fixed with adjustments to the tax to boost collections, and a start might well be made by raising the cap that allows salaried employees to escape payment after their paychecks reach $118,000 and the tax is a smaller bite out of their income — a regressive idea if ever there was one. Or by other reasonable adjustments to retirement age, the percentage of deductions in the payroll tax, the progressive taxation of the benefits, or means tests to eliminate the rich from the system altogether. I would personally deplore that last option because it violates the concept of social insurance rather than handouts to the improvident. In any case measures like these could extend the life of the system for decades.Ah, yes, but that’s when the shortfalls are considered a problem, not a crime, and the doomsayers of the far right want it to be a crime because it fits so neatly into their longstanding basic agenda of demonizing government as the root of all evil. The mindset of the Wall Street plutocrats, whose greed has no limits, and their free market ideologue allies is one that aches at the very thought of some public service that could be turned into a fountain of private profit. They claim that deregulation and return to “free market” economics is the pathway to prosperity for all. Their recent success in pushing public policy in that direction has given us the “honor” of having the greatest income inequality in much of the developed world.The “Social Security is a Ponzi crime” scam continues because it is essential to the deceptive mythology of unregulated capitalism’s billionaire class, and it is especially cruel because it has already convinced many young workers that in fact they will never receive a penny in Social Security benefits and struck fear into the hearts of those already collecting benefits that they will lose them — the young and the old alike. That is both vicious and cruel, and to expose and denounce it, especially in this age of flourishing frauds, is the duty of any rational and fair-minded person.

In the 2018 IPCC ( The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C, it sets the target of reducing carbon emissions as follows:https://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf (On page 14)“In model pathways with no or limited overshoot of 1.5°C, global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 (40–60% interquartile range), reaching net zero around 2050 (2045–2055 interquartile range). For limiting global warming to below 2°C11 CO2 emissions are projected to decline by about 25% by 2030 in most pathways (10–30% interquartile range) and reach net zero around 2070 (2065–2080 interquartile range).”China, though its GDP (gross domestic product) is somewhat slowing down in the past several years, has been a driving engine for the world economy for the past two decades, especially after the global financial crisis in 2008.Rapid development means huge consumption of energies, clear or non-clear, renewables or non-renewables.Here in the Wiki link, Climate change in China - Wikipedia it says:“Since 2006, China has been the world's largest emitter of CO2 annually. China ratified the Kyoto Protocol as a non-Annex B party without binding targets, and ratified the Paris Agreement to fight climate change. As the world's largest coal producer and consumer country, China worked hard to change energy structure and experienced a decrease in coal consumption since 2013 to 2016.”It’s true that China is the largest coal consumer, and it’s also true that China has stepped up its efforts to reduce carbon emissions.I strongly recommend you to watch this video, it not only tells us what efforts China has made, but also explains why and how, China, as a responsible major power in the world, has strived to adjust its energy structure.Why has China become world leader in renewable energy?According to this video, China has realized that over-reliance on traditional energy means the environment upon which human survival depends is deteriorating. The optimisation of energy-consumption structures and building of new energy-supply systems are of great urgency to the world and China.So, China is adjusting its energy structure and switching to renewable energies.Take auto industry as an example, we have witnessed a rapid increase in electric vehicles over the last three or four years. It is reported that there are up to about five million electric vehicles on the road across the world. In 2018, there were two million sold, while in 2017, the number was over a million.Statistics show China has been the world's largest consumer of new energy cars for three consecutive years from 2016 to 2018.By 2017, the cumulative sales of new-energy vehicles reached 1.8 million in China, accounting for over 50 percent of the global cumulative sales figure.China has also invested more than any other country in renewable energies and has a lot of leading technologies, solar in particular.Its photovoltaic industry is the largest worldwide. From 2013 to 2018, China, for five consecutive years, led the world in increased photovoltaic nameplate capacity.China has also made leaps and bounds in hydropower and wind power development.In a report by Schroders on 2017,Is China the world's most influential climate change leader? - Schroders global - SchrodersIt answered: China leads investment in renewablesThen, personally, I agree with what The New York Times said in a 2018 report:China Is a Climate Leader but Still Isn’t Doing Enough on Emissions, Report SaysIn responding to the Quora question, China has actually reduced its carbon emission by big portion, and honored its pledge made during the 2009 UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen - reducing carbon emissions GDP per unit by 40 to 45 percent by 2020 - three years ahead of schedule.And I believe China will continue to do so to fulfil its commitment to its people, and also to the world.