Let's be real here, most of us can't wait for retirement. I'm not really worried about what I will do when I retire, because I know what I will not have to do any longer and that is work. Working is not only what you do once you arrive because you need to work but it's the grind of getting there and getting home also. They say work is not supposed to be fun, so now you should understand why people can't wait to retire. I vote that people should be able to make voluntary contributions to social security and medicare, in that social security and medicare are automatically deducted from paychecks of those who work for an employer. If you are self employed then you are responsible for making the deductions of an employer and employee, as this depends on how you work either as a business or independent worker. Which means in order to collect from social security and or medicare you have to pay into it. But what if you wanted to retire early? There is no law that says what age is too young to retire. Although, there is an age when you are eligible to collect your social security and medicare benefits, otherwise it would be a waste to leave them uncollected, since they money and benefits are yours and you have earned them by working. The law should be adjusted to accommodate those who want to retire early by paying into the social security system/medicare voluntarily. The more people contribute to the system in their early years of working, the more social security has to invest with to keep up with the demand of people retiring and the increasing cost of living. If a person even doubles or triples the amount of social security/medicare he or she contributes then, that money can be put to use by social security many years before a person actually retires. For example: if at the age of thirty, a person decides to take part in the voluntary social security and medicare contribution program. They continue to contribute money and their projected monthly payout will be adjusted according to what is contributed yearly. Which means that one can receive the maximum payout of social security regardless of what they earned or how long they worked because it is voluntary and not limited due to salary restrictions. Once they contribute enough to receive the maximum amount they need not pay into the system anymore because they have maxed out on contributions, with a mandatory twenty-five to thirty year contribution; after all is said and done that person may be able to retire at sixty or maybe even sooner. The great part for social security/medicare is that they receive an increase of contributions twenty-five or thirty years before people or retirees are eligible to collect it. In doing so this can alleviate the employment sector to make way for younger workers and those who are sixty or getting there and need their social security to be an amount worth the cost of living, so they can finally retire after working for so many years. If work is not supposed to be fun, then who want's to do it until they of course die? Let's remove this obstacle by having voluntary contributions to social security and medicare.
This seems like a long one. You know when you go to vote and hope that it will make a difference and you find that you just keep putting the same types of people in office. It's disappointing when this happens because their elected term turns out to be a very long one due to all of the problems a city may have. Mount Vernon New York is too small a town to go through what it does and is quite old enough to know the difference between many things. The problem here is we tend to put czar's or dictators in office who may have other political ambitions and are using the town to create a reputation for their political career. You may say well what is the problem? Despite the fact that a town may become bankrupt and without the necessary resources to keep it functioning, it still exists and appears like any other one in the area, but truthfully much damage has resulted due to the amount of years an elected official has been allowed to stay in office. Is it possible to change the law for towns that have under a certain amount of people and are not very large area wise so that in the event there is a leader that is not able to govern the town the way it should be, then another election can be held within three years to put another elected official in? It's not a bad idea and I only say it because when you have people or ones that hold office and they stay for eight years or so they can really ruin a town. If the state were to compare what a town had regarding resources before such elected official entered office and then compare it to what it has now along with the agenda of accomplishment, the people along with the state will see if they have the right person in office. This needs to be done every two years or so and if it is found that such an elected official has other aspirations and is just using a town to establish themselves, then it may be time for that person to move on after three years. This would reduce the time a person stays in office and so that a city or town is not a risk in any way due to a misguided government. In small towns whereby you have the same structure as a larger one in terms of voting, we neglect the larger picture because a smaller town may have fewer resources and once you get someone in office who does not have ones best interest, things get depleted rather quickly. In small towns you need to reduce this amount of time to prevent bankruptcy and possible take over due to unsatisfactory government. Four years may not seem like a long time but when the goals are not directed on what they need to be then that time is basically wasted, due to the outcome of the situations that occur. I vote that smaller towns or cities have elections every three years to prevent corrupt infrastructure from ruining them.
Like many people I like to load up on supplements. Why? Well it's cost effective and helps keep me in good health. Now, I know there are not many studies that will indicate that taking supplements will overall improve your health than eating a balanced diet; but for some who do it as a daily ritual you will find that they prefer to take the supplements so that they do not have to eat the processed foods to try and get some nutritious value out of them. Foods, even the cheaper kind that you find in wholesale or bulk buying stores are always having recalls for this and that so you still may be eating something that is not very good for you although it is food. The problem here is that, are we doing ourselves more harm than good by avoiding foods due to their highly processed and fatty content? Is any of that health worthy? Food is supposed to be enjoyable and not eaten like you are in space with no gravity to hold it down on your plate or napkin or whatever you eat off of. But if you are one of those who work through lunch, or become too tired to cook when you come home or lose your appetite when it's hot or even have the winter just give me a warm bowl of something kind of hunger then perhaps you are missing out on your daily nutrients because you are not eating a balanced diet. The food pill is designed to provide the body with actual meals in pill form. In doing so all of the processed and preservatives additives are taken out of the food and the food pill only contains the nutrients that are good for you. The food pill is designed for very picky eaters, people who are elderly or even ill. Hospitals spend many a dollar giving supplements in a IV bag to provide nutrition to a patient when the same food can given intravenous or in pill or powder form. For example chicken, fish and other poultry can be condensed into a pill for human consumption for those to digest and still get the nutritious value of eating those things. The same thing can be done with fruits and vegetables. By having a pill for of each, the body can have to correct amount of nutrients without the fatty content along with other additives that are in the foods to preserve them and to make food sustainable to last for a while before it is eaten. In caring for a sickly person the food pill is ideal because if they are unable to eat or won't eat they will not miss out on the much needed proteins and nutrients. Food pills made up of poultry, vegetables and fruits will have the actual value of having a meal without the preparation of one and will benefit those who are difficult to feed or who are under constraints and cannot eat regular meals. The food pill is not intended to replace the regular approach of preparing and eating meals, but it is an alternative one can use when actual eating is difficult or becomes too much of a chore. You don't need a medical prescription to buy and use the food pill and it can be sold in supermarkets or wherever you purchase supplements.
Blogs are written by