text:
Social Security: Your Questions Answered
The following is a replay from the 2013 Morningstar Individual Investor Conference.
Jason Stipp: Welcome back to Morningstar's Individual Investor Conference. You're sitting in on the panel Social Security: Your Questions Answered. This has been a very popular topic among our Morningstar readers. In this session we're going to be talking about a couple of strategies, strategies for divorcee, strategies about when to claim your Social Security. This is going to be an increasingly critical issue for retirees as we move forward.
I'm pleased to be joined on this panel by two Social Security gurus, folks who have extreme knowledge of the Social Security system. They're going to be sharing some of those insights with you today.
To my immediate left is Mark Miller. Mark is a Morningstar columnist. You've probably seen his articles on Morningstar.com. He is the author of The Hard Times Guide to Retirement Security, Practical Strategies for Money, Work and Living. He also writes a syndicated column for Reuters and blogs about retirement planning and saving strategies on RetirementRevised.com.
And joining Mark, who also joined us last year, is Mary Beth Franklin, a contributing editor for InvestmentNews. She is a frequent speaker on retirement issues, and I think she must be some kind of mystical Social Security guru. She knows the answers to all of these situations. So it's great to have you, Mary Beth.
Mary Beth Franklin: Thank you.
Stipp: Prior to joining InvestmentNews, she was a senior editor with Kiplinger's Personal Finance magazine, specializing in retirement planning, tax planning, and Social Security.
So, before we get going. I just want to remind our viewers that we will be taking questions during this session, so to the right of your viewer you can enter a question, send it off, and we'll try to get to as many of those as possible. I should say we got tons of questions before this event. This is an event where there's no shortage of questions. We will be trying to hit some of the questions that come in during the panel. So let's get going without any further delay.
Let's start, first of all, before we get into the tactics, and talk a bit about Social Security, the health of Social Security, some of the policy changes around Social Security. This is an area that seems of perennial concern now. Mark, I'd like to start with you. Can you give us a clear concept about the fiscal health of the Social Security program? We hear these big words like insolvency and big problems that are coming up. What should we know about Social Security's health, the trust fund, how do all these factors fit together?
Mark Miller: So, Social Security is basically designed, Jason, as a pay-as-you-go system, meaning that benefits are funded at base out of the payroll taxes that are coming in at the time as the money is going out. So, that's the payroll tax; we have 6.2% tax that's paid by employees and a same amount is paid by employers. That's the payroll tax.
There is also something called the Social Security Trust Fund, which we're in a very unusual period of time in Social Security's history right now in that we have an enormous trust fund surplus that's been built up, basically as the result of the last time Social Security was reformed, which was 1983. At that time, policymakers looking ahead at the age demographics of the country said we're going to have this enormous age wave of baby boomers. We better do something to build up a cushion to pay out those benefits.
So at that time, the big change that was made was a change of the retirement age gradually from 65 to 67. We're right in the middle of that, but the upshot is that we began accumulating this very, very large trust fund surplus. So where we are at right now is those surplus funds are now starting to get drawn down as baby boomers do in fact start to retire and file for Social Security.
And so, the financial issue the Social Security faces is this: The trustees of Social Security say that that trust fund will be gone in 2033. We'll actually get a new projection on that shortly when the new trustee report comes out; that will be the spring. But 2033 is the year in which we would, absent any other change, be back to a PAYGO system. And with those funds exhausted, we would then be at a point, again absent any other change, where Social Security benefits would have to be cut by about 25%. In other words, the program would only have resources to pay out 75% of promised benefits to everybody using the program.
Franklin: And let me just jump in a second. So, when people say Social Security is going bankrupt, it's not going bankrupt. Even under a worst-case scenario, sometime around 2033 when the trust funds are gone, the payroll taxes from workers in 2033 would still be enough to pay $0.75 out of every $1 of benefits, but no one is going to be satisfied with that. This is the most popular and most successful government program in history, and despite the fact our leaders in Congress have had a difficult time getting much done in the last few years, I really do believe they will rise to the occasion to fix this because the public will demand it.
Miller: And the very word "bankrupt" has really no meaning in the context of a federal program anyway, so that's a term of sort of art that's out there in the political dialog. But as Mary Beth is saying, the odds of this 2033 outcome happening I think are quite small, and it's interesting, even the Congressional Budget Office projections on the long range of Social Security assume that full benefits would be continued to get paid even if Congress does nothing. The downside of that is that it means that the government would essentially borrow to plug that difference.
So, that's what we have in a nutshell. It's a very manageable set of questions about what you do to fix that problem. Interestingly, a poll that came out this spring asking people, the public, what would you like to see done to solve the problem, overwhelmingly supported the idea of a gradual increase in the payroll tax, number one; and number two, a gradual increase in the amount of wages that are subject to Social Security tax. Right now it's capped at a little under $114,000 of income where that tax is collected. If you, over a 20-year, period make those changes in payroll tax rates and the cap, you would completely eliminate this problem. And the interesting finding, back to your point on the politics, is that about three fourths of Americans across every demographic descriptor you could think of, whether that's age, income, or political affiliation, supported this approach. So, this is probably where, when the dust settles, we will see this go. We will see some reforms done to shore up Social Security.
Franklin: The other important point to make is that when this was created in 1935, it was created as an earned benefit. People pay payroll taxes to support their future benefits. It is not welfare, and that's one of the reasons it is so popular, because people pay into it, they expect to get a benefit, and it's universal; 94% of all Americans pay into this, so it has great political clout.
Miller: The last thing I want to say about this is, well, why is it that we would have this problem of only $0.75 on the $1 come 2033. A lot of people like to say, well, it's because we are all living longer or something along that line. What the Social Security actuaries will tell you is there are really two reasons that there is an adjustment that needs to be made to keep things in balance. One is we've had a declining birth rate. So again, a PAYGO system, fewer workers coming into the system. And the other is the stagnation and weakness we've seen in wages in the country. So there's a broad economic problem we have as a country that's causing weakness in the payroll tax inflow.
Stipp: And, Mary Beth, you also mentioned in our premeeting, before this panel, that this is different than Medicare, too, and this goes back to the idea of an entitlement program versus a paid-in benefit. So when you're talking about Social Security and you're talking about Medicare, even though they often get lumped together, they're really two separate things.
Franklin: They are two separate issues. Social Security, as we mentioned, generally does not add to the deficit. It is paid for with payroll taxes and interest on the earnings; it's self-sufficient. Medicare is heavily subsidized by the government. Retirees pay premiums, but that only covers about 25% of the costs, which means the government is paying about 75% of the cost of Medicare. As we know, health-care inflation is much higher than general inflation, and we have this enormous boom of baby boomers hitting retirement age. So, there is a structural problem there, and things are going to have to be fixed.
Miller: One thing to add to that though is you do have a payroll tax for Medicare, which supports Medicare Part A, the hospitalization program. It doesn't support all of it, but there is a dedicated payroll tax stream just for that part of the program, but as Mary Beth is saying, beyond that, it's really a mix of the payroll tax, general revenue, and premiums.
Stipp: You mentioned that there was pretty strong support for bumping up that payroll tax over time to help cover some of the shortfalls that we might see because of the demographic changes and other things that you mentioned. But other things have been on the table for Social Security, and I'd like to get your take on them. One of them is means testing, so this is something where you would collect Social Security if you didn't have enough money in retirement. So, there would be some kind of an income test before you would collect from it. Do you think this is a possibility that we'll see in the system?
Miller: I actually doubt it. The big reason is you don't really achieve very much with means testing. While it sounds like a very reasonable thing to say, the line you hear about this all the time is Warren Buffett doesn't need Social Security. No debate in that, but the fact is, there aren't a lot of Warren Buffetts. So the statistics tell you that 90% of benefits from Social Security go to people with $50,000 or less in non-Social Security income, so this is a middle-class program.
Franklin: The other thing is the way the benefits are already structured is that lower-income workers, who haven't had the opportunity to save for their own retirement, get a larger percentage of the benefits. It really is tilted toward lower-income workers, but more importantly everybody who has paid into the system gets something out of it.
Miller: One of the points of confusion about means testing is that the Simpson-Bowles report on deficit commission did include a recommendation that was interpreted to be a means test. It was discussed as means test. And people point to that saying well that would cut half of the Social Security problem out of the picture. But what they didn't really propose true means testing.
Classic means testing is like what we have in Medicaid where you look at person in a current time and [determine whether] they have assets above X or Y to be able to afford something; that's means testing. What Simpson-Bowles proposed really was a change in the formula that measures lifetime earnings and determines your credit. So it's not real means testing; it was looking at your whole lifetime.
So we don't have a real means-testing plan on the table. And administering that I think would be quite complicated because you have to go through this enormous testing; imagine having to submit all these tax returns and so on.
The last point is I think the other reason means testing would be ineffective is it would essentially create a perverse incentive for people to save less, meaning if I know that if I trip a certain number and my benefits get cut, do I have as much of an incentive to keep stocking money away in an IRA? I mean, it's going to come out one side or the other. So there are a lot of reasons that means testing is highly problematic, and I think unlikely to occur.
Stipp: Another thing that could affect benefits is this notion of the inflation indexing. And so there's an inflation adjustment for Social Security payouts, and it's using a certain inflation measure now. There's been talk of changing it to something called the Chained CPI. What is that, and what does it mean bottom line, if it went into effect, for my benefits from Social Security?
Franklin: One of the great values of Social Security is the fact it is inflation-adjusted. Even people who have traditional pensions, most of them don't have an inflation adjustment, which means over the years their pension is worth less. Here Social Security keeps up year after year with your buying power. The way inflation is adjusted now across the board in the government is, it measures a basket of goods, it measures inflation, and it applies this adjustment each year. The Chained CPI basically says well, when steak gets too expensive people just switch to chicken. So, our new inflation adjustment is going to take that into effect.
Opponents of this say, no that's just a benefit cut. And it's particularly difficult for the elderly because their inflation is different. They tend to pay maybe less for food and housing and a lot more for medical expenses. So even under the current system it really doesn't reflect the real sense of inflation and this would just exacerbate it. So, it's talked about a lot again. I think it would be very controversial to impose it.
Miller: And it also is something--of all the different changes that are into discussion--it's the one that it would begin impacting people right away, with that 0.3% difference, which then compounds over the years. So, every year you're starting from that lower base.
Franklin: Because we always say that most people who are 55-plus, 60-plus, probably would not be affected by any proposed changes except something like the inflation adjustment. I think that would be applied across the board.
Miller: The other interesting thing about Chained CPI is most of the proposals on this, this is not just a Social Security thing. It's a change across the entire federal government. So, for example, will it change the way that federal income tax brackets are adjusted for inflation. So, it attracts some opposition from conservatives, too, who dislike it because they see it as ineffectively a stealth tax increase.
Stipp: Mark, you've also done some research around the idea of raising the retirement age. So on the face of it this seems like not unreasonable. People are living longer, so maybe the retirement age should be a little bit higher. But it can actually have, as you found in your work, a pretty substantial impact on your benefits.
Miller: It really is a benefit cut for everybody no matter when you retire. This is one of the things that people don't understand about this question. Because people think, "Well, after all, I will work longer and so on." But the reason that it is a cut is this, that, Social Security is organized around the notion of the full retirement age, which is right now 66, and it's on its way to 67 in 2020.
So, today, if I retire at 65, because of the way that benefits are structured, I would get my full retirement age minus a year's credit. You get more or less against that hoop that you have to jump through of the full retirement age. And likewise, if I retire at 66 today, when the retirement age used to be 65, it used be the 66 was plus one year of credit. So up until, age 70 that sliding movement of the retirement age effectively works as a cut.
To illustrate the changes in 1983 as we mentioned earlier, we gradually moved the retirement age from 65 to 67. The best estimates I've seen on this suggest that, when that change is fully implemented in 2020, people who retire in 2020 will see their lifetime benefits cut by about 15%, as a result just of that move. So, it's an across-the-board benefit cut.
Franklin: But the flip side of that is, yes people are living longer and when Social Security was created in 1935, the 65 as a normal retirement age was fairly arbitrary. That's what [chancellor Otto von] Bismarck had done in Germany for its pension system [in the 19th century], and life expectancy from birth in the United States was only about 62 [in 1935, so the Social Security retirement age] was set as a higher bar.
If you extrapolate the life expectancy we have now, if we did it on the same premises back in 1935, normal retirement age would be about 83 now. So, even if it has gradually increased, it's still a pretty good deal, and you're talking today's 4-year-olds might have to wait until 70 to collect their full benefits.
Stipp: Let's move and talk about some of the nuts and bolts of Social Security. Because this is where we really get into some of the red meat about how people should manage their Social Security benefits, and it can make a big difference. We will start pretty basic. We had a few reader questions asking about eligibility. Mary Beth, can you just lay out the eligibility rules for Social Security and who can collect it?
Franklin: Right. As Mark had mentioned, the current full retirement age is now 66. If you collect at 66, you get 100% of your promised benefits. You can still collect as early as 62, but you will take a permanent haircut. If you start at 62, you will get 25% less. Then there is also this incentive to wait longer, you can wait up until age 70 and for every year you delay between your normal retirement age 66, and age 70, you get an extra 8% a year.
So, that means you if wait until 70, you will have a 132% of your basic benefit. The difference between collecting early at 62 and collecting at 70 is almost double the benefit. And more importantly that bigger base you get will be a bigger base for all the future cost-of-living adjustments. So, for people living longer who can afford to delay their benefits, it's a real substantial chunk of guaranteed retirement income for the rest of their life.
Stipp: And Mark, what kind of work history do you need to have in order to be able to collect Social Security?
Miller: Its 40 quarters of credit.
Franklin: It's basically 10 years.
Miller: 10 years of work basically.
Franklin: And that's part-time work, essentially. You don't even have to have full-time work.
Miller: That 8% that Mary Beth just talked about I think is worth drilling on for just a minute. If you think about delaying for a year, and let's say you are no longer working and you have to fund living expenses out of savings to delay a year--money that you'd have otherwise being using for Social Security--if you thought about that as an investment in an annuity and what kind of return you are getting, that's an 8% return. That beats almost anything you could possibly get.
Franklin: And it's a risk-free 8%.
Miller: And it's going to be an inflation-adjusted 8%.
Franklin: It's extremely valuable.
Miller: So, there has been some really good research on that, comparing different ways to basically buy annuity, and this is one of the very best ways you can do it.
Stipp: So, we have some slides up for readers to help with some of these concepts. So there is a "What's Your Number" slide here? And the slides are also available to viewers in the chat module below. So you can follow along with some of these concepts. We're talking about the full retirement age now at 66, and then there is a range depending on when you were born.
And I just want to talk about some of the core concepts we've already talked about when you can claim and what you can claim? You can obviously start as early as age 62, you can delay it. And Mark, you've written a lot about the benefits of delaying it. We do get a lot of questions about "Well if I invest that money, maybe I can do better."
There is also a concept known as the break-even age. So, what is that, and how does that factor in? Because some people want to collect it earlier because they will start getting paid earlier and pretty conceivably get paid longer is the idea.
Miller: Break-even is looking at this concept of Social Security from a lifetime benefit standpoint and how long do you need to live in order to make back what you would have received had you started at 62, it's that simple. So, I always say that lifetime is kind of the wrong way to look at it. I think you want to look at it…
Franklin: Right, it's income.
Miller: Its income. Maybe nobody banks Social Security, right. I mean I can't think of what that circumstance would be. You use it to meet your living expenses. This is a social insurance program. What is this insuring? It's insuring against the risk of outliving your money. So, whatever you can do to maximize that insurance lifetime, monthly, month-in month-out is the way to look at it. So, that's what break-even though is.
Franklin: But as someone had said to me, you must be present to win. So if you have health issues. I mean this is all based on average life expectancy. If you don't think you're going to make it until 78 or so, go ahead and take it early. But as we'll talk in a few minutes, there are strategies for married couples where it's not just when you take your benefits, but locking in the biggest benefit for the surviving spouse, whichever one that is.
Miller: Great point. I mean, there are a million different reasons why you might want to file early. But that's what break-even is all about.
Stipp: Here is an interesting question from Greg M., and this is a question we got when we were soliciting for reader feedback. If a person is single and will have to take additional IRA funds to make up a difference of not taking at age 62, isn't the advantage of waiting diminished? So I, in other words, will have to start drawing down from my own investments if I don't start at age 62, and it doesn't seem like a good thing because those investments won't work for me as long. I'm starting to maybe tap my capital. How do I make that trade-off of taking money out of my investments to wait [in taking Social Security], or wait and get a higher payout later?
Franklin: Mark is going to take this because I know you want to cite that study.
Miller: And we can put up a link to this later, but there has been some great research looking at that interplay of Social Security and portfolio life. Most of the research suggests that that delaying tactic actually is very positive for the long-term portfolio health, even though it sounds counterintuitive for the reason that the reader suggests. But what happens is that huge increase in benefits that Mary Beth talked about a minute ago takes so much pressure off the need to draw down the portfolio as you move down that path that it's extremely positive. It can extend portfolio life anywhere from three to 10 years, depending on all the variables that would come in there.
Franklin: It can actually help your taxes in retirement later on because keep in mind if you are drawing money from a traditional IRA, you are paying taxes on every dollar you are taking out. But with Social Security, depending on your income, a portion of it is going to be tax-free. So, as you replace more of your income as you get older with Social Security benefits that are not fully taxable and reducing the amount of IRA withdrawals, which are taxable, you could actually end up paying less in taxes.
Miller: And it gives you maybe more flexibility in managing that mix.
Franklin: Exactly.
Stipp: Lots and lots of questions about couples strategies, so we have some couples planning basic key concepts, and, Mary Beth, you had supplied this information for us, so thank you for that. Again, you can download these slides in the chat module that's below the viewer. But let's talk about some of the key concepts behind couples planning before we dig into some scenarios. What's the basic framework for how couples' Social Security benefits work?
Franklin: The basic concept is, as a worker who has at least the minimum amount of 10 years of work, they're going to qualify for Social Security benefits on their own work record. Their spouse, let's say, this spouse never worked and I'm going to say it's the wife, but it's gender neutral, the spouse qualifies for benefits equal to 50% of what the worker gets. That's in addition to the worker's 100%.
Now a lot of it is age-based. I'd like to call 66, the current retirement age, full retirement age as the magic age for three reasons. If you wait until 66, you get your full retirement benefit. If you wait until 66 and you continue to work, you get your full benefits without any reduction from the earnings cap, which we can talk about in a minute. And most importantly, if you wait until the magic age of 66, you can exercise some of these strategies, which for married couples, and that can even include widows and divorced spouses in some cases, you can really maximize your benefits. So maybe you want to give us the question and we will give an example of how it works.
Stipp: So there are several long questions. So the question from reader, Steph. "My husband is retired. When I turn 62 in three years, can I collect his Social Security and wait to collect on mine until at least my full retirement age?"
Franklin: Great question, and the short answer is no. Yes, she can collect at age 62. She will get that permanent 25% haircut on her own. But anytime you collect benefits before the magic age of 66, you can't separate it. You have to take the highest benefit to which you are entitled, whether it's your own benefit on your own work record, or as a spouse. If she waited until 66, she can exercise this wonderful strategy called "restricting a claim to spousal benefits only." She could say, my husband is collecting his benefit, I'm 66, tell Social Security I just want my spousal benefit, which is half of his. My own benefit is going to keep growing by 8% a year, and at 70 I'm going to switch to my own. And it's going to be worth a 132% of what it would have been at 66. This can be an enormous strategy for couples trying to maximize the retirement income.
Stipp: Another question, another scenario: "I have just turned 66," so that's that magic age. "I am working full-time at a job with a six-figure salary, which I plan to continue," so making a good salary. "I'd like to start receiving my full Social Security benefit right now, but I hesitate because I wonder about my spousal benefit from my wife, who is retired, versus my benefit. Is it better to take the spousal benefit first and wait until 70?" So, there are, obviously, some variables here.
Franklin: It's exactly the scenario we just described, because he is 66, magic age. He's at full retirement. He can keep working. He won't lose money to the earnings cap, and he can say to Social Security, "Restrict my claim to spousal benefits only, give me half of what she's getting, and mine is going to keep growing at 8% a year."
Miller: One other thing about that situation that's interesting is, he's in a situation where he could trigger problems with Medicare because if he's got a high income plus Social Security, he is going to be above the $85,000 for individuals, and I'm forgetting the number.
Franklin: $170,000.
Miller: $170,000 [for couples filing a joint tax return]. It's possible you could trip the number that pushes you into the high-income Medicare premium surcharges, which are very large. So, if you have high ordinary income from work, you really want to watch your strategies for additional income coming in for Social Security for these other reasons, outside of just maximizing Social Security.
Franklin: This is not your grandfather's retirement. It's gotten really complicated.
Stipp: On that point, so there are a lot of different variables to keep in mind here. Are there any tools that you guys like to try to figure this out? Because everyone's situation is different; we are taking some questions from readers now, and I would advise them as well to really think through these issues. We don't have all of their information, but there are a lot of variables, lot of moving parts here. Where can people go to get a better sense of what's a good plan essentially?
Franklin: Do you want to start first, Mark. I mean, there is a lot of great stuff out there.
Miller: Yeah. We probably agree on some of them. There are a variety of tools online that are both free and some that have some small fees attached. In the free category, you can go on the Social Security website to just get an estimate of your own benefit, and also a play with different retirement ages. It's fairly basic. The AARP website also has a pretty good free tool that lets you play with different scenarios for your filing.
Franklin: It's a good educational tool.
Miller: It's a good educational tool. AARP also launched recently that's I think terrific is an online searchable database of most frequently asked questions. It's sort of the technology version of Mary Beth. She knows all this in her head. They've got it in the database. Slightly more sophisticated, but also involving a fee, one that I think is terrific and I think [Mary Beth likes], too, is called socialsecuritysolutions.com.
Franklin: Absolutely, yeah.
Miller: Launched by a couple of people who are actuarial experts and academics in this area. For a reasonable fee, it ranges depending on what level you take, from $80 to a couple of hundred dollars. You put in a very small amount of information, the work required on the front end is small, one of the reasons I like it. You put in your and your spouse's birth dates, Social Security numbers, and a couple of other things.
Franklin: And your estimated benefits.
Miller: And your estimated benefit, you go get that from the Social Security site. It then spits back a 20-page PDF document outlining different strategies you might consider for maximizing benefits. I think that's pretty slick, and for a couple hundred dollars, boy, is that a possible big return on your investment.
Franklin: I think it's one of the best things out there for consumers. There's other software out there for financial advisors. But I really think this is the best for consumers, and they actually have a Step B section to that software called retireeincome.com. It's affiliated with Social Security Solutions, and for those people who want to look at their whole retirement-income picture, including the tax efficiency of drawing down from different accounts and how their Social Security fits into it, I think it's well worth the money involved. It's not a big expense, and you are talking perhaps a difference of $100,000 over the joint lifetime of a married couple.
Miller: And what's so great about that, too, is just that it doesn't require a ton of work on the front end. Some of the tools that are out there, you can spend a whole weekend just inputting data, and this is very, very slick and simple.
Franklin: One other point mentioning the Social Security site itself, a lot of people do not realize that the Social Security benefit is no longer in the mail. Because of budget cuts, Social Security is no longer mailing these out.
Miller: You mean the statement, the annual statement?
Franklin: The statement, I'm sorry. The statement, correct. So if you want your information, which I encourage everyone to get, they need to go to ssa.gov and set up their own, it's called My Account, and it's actually your personalized statement just like the old paper one used to be, but online.
Stipp: Mark, I heard Mary Beth mention a $100,000 figure. These are important decisions, and you mention that there is big implications for getting this right. So these are some great tools that you've mentioned, but we are talking about a lot of money here to make sure that you make this a good decision.
Miller: Yes, and it's surprising. This is a big deal for middle-class households. It's a big deal for what you might call mass affluent households, and even for wealthier households. I did a column recently on this subject. We took this question of, all right, what if 2033 rolls around and the unlikely happens, that benefits were cut 25%, just because you hear this discussed so much in the press. It's like, well, everybody should be discounting their benefits because we know this problem is coming.
So, working with a financial planner we actually created scenarios for different sort of levels of wealth with some hypothetical households, and it was really interesting to see the implication of a cut in benefits even on fairly well-off households because of these issues of longevity, portfolio exhaustion that can incur in the far-out years, particularly with woman living longer than men, there is this issue of running out of money, and that's the thing that Social Security is so good at. So, one way of looking at your question is a benefit cut, the other is making the best decision plus/minus 10%, lifetime 15% of your benefit can be a very big deal, and I was surprised to see how far up the affluence ladder this impact actually goes.
Franklin: Following on that point. Mark mentioned the importance of survivor benefits. This is what a lot of people don't understand that when a husband and wife are making their decision of when they are going to claim their benefits, their main goal for most people should be to get the biggest benefit possible for the surviving spouse, and the way Social Security benefits work, we talked about a spousal benefit is 50% of the worker's benefit; a survivor benefit is a 100% of the worker's benefit including those 8%-a-year delayed retirement credits. So, for that higher-earning husband who delays taking his benefits until 70, he is not just getting the biggest bang for his buck, but if he dies first and sorry guys that's actuarially the way it is going to work, she will have this bigger benefit for the rest of her life, the smaller benefit will disappear at that point, but the household will maintain the biggest benefit.
Miller: I think that point ties back to what we were talking about earlier on break-even, this notion of the break-even point, because when you look at married couples there is a pretty good chance that one member of the household will far exceed…
Franklin: Make it until 92, yeah.
Miller: …the break-even point. So, these strategies become so important. It's timely to be talking about married couples right now too because the Supreme Court [is hearing] the issue of the Defense of Marriage Act, and I think we even got a few questions about civil union and so on. This is an issue I've written some about, whatever gets decided on the Defense of Marriage Act will have a big implication for Social Security benefits for same-sex couples. Civil union is not a relevant concept to Social Security because of DOMA. DOMA essentially, as we know, defines a marriage between a man and a woman. So, Social Security and any other federal program that has its hands tied can only look at a married couple under that definition.
If that changes, then Social Security will change, and it will then recognize any married couple. So if you live in a state with same-sex marriage, you will, to Social Security, look the same as a traditional hetero marriage. So, that's going to be a big deal, and a lot of people are watching it closely. And because of all things we talked about, the importance of these spousal strategies, the implications for retirement security for same-sex couples is huge. It also has applications for Medicare, 401(k), IRA, it goes way down the path.
Stipp: Another question that involves the spousal benefits and the survivor benefits we got from the reader, what if one spouse has not completed 40 quarters of work? How does that work as far as spousal benefit or the survivor benefit?
Franklin: Well, remember, as long as you are married to someone who qualifies for Social Security, you qualify for spousal benefits. This was designed for Ozzie and Harriet back in the 1930s when most women did not work. So as long as one member has Social Security benefits then the spouse can get it.
The other thing I'd like to mention, when I go around the country talking about this, the question I get the most is from divorced spouses. So many people do not realize that if they were married to the same-spouse for at least 10 years and are currently not married, they too are entitled to spousal benefits just as if they were married. And what's really important is that ex-spouse doesn't even have to file for benefits. They just have to be old enough to file for benefits. So, they can't say "I'm never going to retire; I'm never get die." As long as that ex-spouse is 62 and you are at least 62 and you are married for 10 years you can quality for spousal benefits, but more importantly, you could use one of these strategies that wait until 66. And [then you can say] to Social Security "I want to restrict my benefits to spousal benefits only," collect on the ex, and let your own benefits grow 8% a year up to age 70.
Stipp: Since you brought up the issue of divorce, we did get a reader question. What about in the case of re-marriage, how do benefits work there?
Franklin: If you are divorced, you must be unmarried to collect on an ex-spouse, but if you are a survivor, you're a widow or a widower, and you wait until after age 60 to remarry, you can continue your survivor benefits. Even if you were divorced and the ex died and you waited until after 60 to remarry, you can collect. Believe it or not, I get calls from people, "I've been married three times," as long as they each lasted at least 10 years, you get to pick the benefit of the highest benefit. It's like tic-tac-toe.
Stipp: So let's move on to what you call Magic Strategies, Mary Beth. We have some information here for readers that you provided for us. And these are strategies where couples can essentially maximize their payments. Some folks have heard a little bit, we got a few questions about them, but let's walk through the basics of the Magic Strategies, the first is called file and suspend. How does that work? When would you use it?
Franklin: And again, this is the idea. You must wait until 66, the current normal retirement age to do this. But let's say you have an Ozzie and Harriet situation when the man has worked his whole life and the wife has little or no earnings on record. He wants to keep working until 70 because he knows he wants to maximize that survivor benefit; she, frankly, would like some money now.
If he waits until 66, he can say to Social Security, "I want to file and suspend." For that purpose, that triggers her spousal benefits, so she can collect, as long as she's at least 62; he does not collect his. His continues to grow 8% a year up to age 70. This is the best of both worlds. It allows a couple where there's a major earner and maybe one with little or no earnings to get some income now, collecting spousal benefits and then delaying the biggest benefit until later, and this works not just with spouses, but with minor children. We have so many older men who have second marriages, pushing the baby carriage with their AARP card. What a lot of people don't realize is if a parent is collecting Social Security retirement benefits and there are minor dependent children in the household, the children each get benefits up to 50% of the amount of the retirement benefit subject to a family maximum. So, you have two kids that are 12 and 14, dad gets retirement, they do too.
Stipp: Let's take a scenario here and you can talk through and see how this applies potentially. So, Richard asked, "My wife and I are interested in maximizing our Social Security. I don't plan to start drawing Social Security until I get the maximum amount. We are both in good health. We have enough saved so that we won't need to begin withdrawing from our accounts until later. I've heard the younger spouse applying for spousal benefits when they turn 62 then changing to their own benefits when they turn 70."
Franklin: That doesn't quite work that way. They've got it a little confused. Yes, she could collect as early as 62 with that permanent reduction, she'd get 75% of her benefits, but any time you collect benefits before your normal retirement age, you lose the opportunity for these other strategies like file and suspend or whatever. So, she couldn't just turn 66 and say "I want my own benefits now." She's given up that opportunity, but again, when you look at a married couple as an economic unit, in many cases it does make sense for one to claim early even though it's reduced and for the other to claim later to get the maximum benefit, because here's something else people don't understand. Social security retirement benefits and survivor benefits are two separate pots of money.
Even though she takes Social Security benefits at 62 and the retirement benefits are permanently reduced, if he dies she steps up to a survivor benefit 100% of what he got, and as long as she is at least normal retirement age when she collects a survivor benefit, there is no reduction. So, she really has her cake and eat it too, get the reduced benefit now, step up to bigger retirement benefits when he claims and then step up to unreduced survivor benefits.
Stipp: So, in the case where someone might be taking at 62, that would usually be the lower-income earner, because the higher-income earner you are wanting to wait until at least that normal retirement age?
Franklin: Right. And then here is what I'd like to do for power couples, they both have substantial earnings on their own record. They can do a combination. Now this assumes they are both roughly the same age. At 66, the higher earner can say to Social Security, "I want to file and to suspend." That triggers benefits for the spouse, who is also 66 and says, "I want to restrict my claim to spousal benefits only."
What happens is, one gets zero for right now, one gets a spousal benefit worth 50%, both of their benefits continue to grow 8% a year, and at age 70 they both get their maximum benefits. To give you an idea how much money we are talking about, if both of their normal retirement age benefits were about $2,000 a month, by the time they got their maximum benefits, that works out to about $72,000 a year combined. And that's cost of living adjusted for the rest of their lives.
Stipp: A question from Andrea, she asked about civil unions, but she also said what criteria should one consider when deciding if marriage is more advantageous for Social Security versus if both people remain single. So, it sounds like married couples do have access to other strategies.
Franklin: Exactly.
Stipp: A good idea if you are so inclined anyway to go ahead and get married if you're not already, versus some sort of separate benefits?
Franklin: I'm sure Social Security is reason enough to get married, but I would like to see marriage vows change to say and in the event death does not do us apart make it at least a decade because people who are married nine years and get divorced can't use these divorce strategies. So, I would like every divorce attorney in the country to be aware that marriages need to last 10 years in order for an ex-spouse to get benefits.
Miller: Yeah, setting aside the relationship side of things, marriage is very beneficial in Social Security. The rules are designed very much around helping married couples.
Stipp: Let's just review, you already talked a bit about the divorce rules, but we have a slide for folks, you mentioned collect on your ex. So, let's just review what the rules are again so folks are clear. If you are divorced, when can you collect, when can't you collect, and what do you need to really keep in mind about that?
Franklin: The first rule is you must have been married to the same spouse for at least 10 years. Now, you could have been married three years, gotten divorced, remarried the same person for seven years, that works. You're married at least 10 years to the same spouse; you're divorced and currently unmarried--that's the other key. Then you can claim spousal benefits equal to half of the worker's full retirement age benefit as early as age 62, but anytime you collect before age 66 and you're still working, you're going to lose some benefits to the earnings cap, and you can't get fancy with your strategies.
But since so many divorced women have to keep working, if they wait until 66, they can a file restricted claim for spousal benefits only, collect half of their ex's benefit, and he doesn't even have to know about it. It doesn't take money away from him. He could be remarried to another wife. It doesn't affect her. You still get this benefit. And then wait until age 70 and collect your own benefit which at that point is going to be worth 132% a year. And again remember spousal benefits are 50%, survivor benefits are 100%. If your ex dies you may be entitled to get a survivor benefit, even if he is remarried worth 100% of what he was entitled to.
Stipp: So, these are very important things to keep in mind for folks who had been married before. I think you covered some of these survivor benefit key topics that you had listed. We had a few questions on survivor benefits from some of our readers that we got when they were registering.
So, Benny asks, "My wife's family lives a long time, often into their 90s. My wife has been a housewife almost all her wife and she has almost no Social Security. I am two years younger than my wife. How can I make sure we maximize our Social Security for both before and after I am gone?" So, a lot of topics we have already talked about could come into play here, but what would you suggest in a scenario like this?
Franklin: Right. Now, it does get harder when the lower-earning spouse, often the wife, is older because she often has to wait for him to file to trigger her benefits. If she had any work history of her own, she probably wants to go ahead and take it at 62 even though it's reduced because she has got to step up to a survivor benefit later. If she has no benefits on her own, she can't claim. She has nothing to claim on. So, he might want to wait until he is 66, she would be 68 at that point, he would file and suspend for the purpose of triggering her benefits. He would delay collecting his own until age 70 when they are worth 132%. That way they have this big chunk of money as a couple and whoever dies first whether it's a husband or a wife, the largest benefit is going to survive, the smaller benefit will disappear. So, it's a great strategy for couples.
Miller: Especially, when you have expectation of a great deal of longevity.
Stipp: Another question, we got a couple of questions like this as folks were registering for the event. "My question is one of timing and benefits of taking Social Security for both spouses. I am age 66 and my wife is 55. I plan to begin taking Social Security at age 70. Her retirement benefit would be smaller than mine at any of her ages 62, 66 or 70. Is there an effect to my spouse on when she claims her Social Security benefit once I have passed? I have to assume that I may or may not have passed by her ideal age to take Social Security."
Franklin: Good point that you raised because we keep talking about the early retirement benefit at age 62, but it's different for survivors. Widows and widowers can collect as early as age 60. So perhaps in this scenario, he has died, she can get survivor benefits as early as age 60. Now, they will be reduced compared with what they would have been at her normal retirement age, and again, we mentioned earlier that retirement and survivor benefits are two different pots of money. So depending on what her own benefit was, she could take survivor benefits at age 60 until age 66 when her own retirement benefits could kick in at the full benefits. There's lots of ways they can play around with that.
Miller: Could she then go back to survivor benefits at a later point or once you've done that, you're done?
Franklin: Probably you would only do which would be higher.
Miller: Which would be higher, yeah.
Franklin: And the other thing to keep in mind is, if you collect benefits before 66, and you're still working, you're going to lose money to the Earnings Test, and maybe that's something we should talk about now. We keep referring to the Earnings Test without explaining it. [Mark,] do you want to go into it?
Miller: Go ahead.
Franklin: The Earnings Test says if you collect benefits before your normal retirement age and continue to work--this is money from a job, not from investments--in 2013 there's an earnings cap of $15,130 a year, I think. If you earn more than that, basically you lose $1 in benefits for every $2 you earn over the limit. Effectively that means if you earn more than $45,000 a year, all your benefits go away. They're not gone forever. They're actually deferred. What happens is, "I took benefits at 62. I kept working, I earned, and I've to give money back." When I get to my normal retirement age, Social Security looks back at my record and said, "Well, you claimed at 62, but you gave back two years' worth." So, it's really as if you claimed at 64, so you get a smaller haircut in benefits than you would have otherwise.
Stipp: We have about five minutes left. We got a lot of other questions I'd like to try to get to. Hopefully they will be a little bit easier and not quite as complicated as all the scenarios, but we have a few questions on Social Security and Social Security disability, and I think that there is some confusion here about these benefits. So, one is, "I am 62 and receive Social Security disability payments. When Social Security retirement benefit payments begin at age 66 will I receive the same amount as my Social Security disability payment?"
Franklin: Yes. Basically, it's an accounting change. You get the same check; it's just now called "retirement" rather than "disability."
Stipp: I think we touched on some of this before, when we were speaking of taxation issues, but when again are Social Security benefits taxable? What tax do you pay on them, and what should folks keep in mind about tax liabilities with Social Security benefit?
Franklin: [Mark,] would you like to go into this?
Miller: I'm struggling remembering the number now; you probably have it at your fingertips.
Franklin: Anyone who is single, whose provisional income, which I will explain in a second, is above $25,000, some of their Social Security benefits will be taxed, and for married couples, it's above $34,000 joint income. But it's not income the way you normally think of it for taxes. It's all of your taxable income plus all of your tax-exempt income like if you invest in municipal bonds, plus half of your Social Security benefits. And when you add that together, if you're single and that adds up to more than $25,000, some of your benefits are going to be taxed. If you're married, if it's over $34,000, it would be taxed. There are two levels. Up to half of your benefits could be taxed and then when you hit the second tier, 85% could be taxed. But if you look at it the other way, you're guaranteed that at least 15% of your Social Security benefits will not be taxed under any circumstances compared with taking money out of a traditional IRA where everything is taxed.
Miller: This gets more interesting as more people work longer. So, this is going to become a more important issue, the same as Medicare, some of these things we were talking about earlier with these high-income surcharges. So, work and retirement is going to get to be a much more interesting and complex planning topic.
Franklin: And the other thing, this was a result of the big changes to Social Security in 1983 when they taxed benefits for the first time, but those levels have never been indexed for inflation. So, every year as people's incomes rise more and more people are paying taxes on their Social Security benefits.
Miller: Another point here is that some states levy taxes on Social Security benefits and some do not.
Franklin: Right. I think about 36 states do not tax Social Security benefits at this point. So, when you're looking at where to retire, it's one of the things to think about.
Miller: [Mary Beth,] you'd know this. States that do [tax], do they use the same formula that you described the federal level?
Franklin: It's sort of all over the lot. Some use the federal income tax as the base and some don't.
Miller: OK.
Stipp: So, when you were laying that out, you included investment income as part of that calculation? We had a question about someone who had inherited a 401(k) and has to take payments from that 401(k).
Franklin: That's taxable income.
Stipp: So, that will considered as in part of the calculation?
Franklin: Yes.
Miller: That's ordinary income.
Stipp: A question, an interesting one, "Does the spouse need to have a Social Security number to get spousal benefits?" The spouse is on a dependent visa, the question says. Do we know about how works?
Franklin: That's a really good question. I don't know the answer to be honest, and rather than guess wrong, I'll just say I don't know.
Miller: We'll get back to you.
Stipp: And lastly, I think we have just about a minute left. Mary Beth, you recently wrote about something called lump sum; the lump sum option in Social Security, how does that work?
Franklin: Basically, once you've reached your normal retirement age of 66 and you choose to delay at some point beyond that, when you start your benefits, you can request up to six months of retroactive benefits as a lump sum. But you can't double count. Let's say, if I were planning to start my benefits at 66 in six months, and I say give me six months of a lump sum, they're going to calculate my future benefits as if I claimed at age 66. So you can't do both. But some people like to look at this as a bonus: "This is how I afford that trip to celebrate retirement."
Miller: Have you looked at how that decision would impact your future trajectory of income?
Franklin: Certainly, it's going to reduce your base amount compared with not taking it, which of course will reduce the amount you get in cost-of-living adjustments going forward. So, it's probably a feel-good upfront hit, but if you're going to delay anyway, you might as well just get it for the rest of your life.
Stiff: Well, unfortunately, we're going to have to wrap it up and call it a day there. I want to thank my panelists for, as last year, bringing some really great insights and some really, really useful information on this very important topic. Social Security income is going to be a hot topic for retirees for a long time to come.
So, Mary Beth Franklin from InvestmentNews; thanks for joining me. Mark Miller, Morningstar columnist, author, and retirement expert, thanks for being here.
Miller: Thank you, Jason.
Franklin: Thanks a lot.


text:
We are committed to recognizing superior talent and service, regardless of financial need, as we seek to assemble a student body that will benefit from and contribute to Dickinson's distinctive characteristics—global engagement, hands-on learning, exploration of environmental sustainability and an outstanding network of accomplished alumni. All applicants, based upon credentials, are considered for Dickinson's merit-based tuition scholarships, which recognize top students in the incoming first-year class.
The John Dickinson, Benjamin Rush, John Montgomery and Founders scholarships are applied to tuition charges and are renewable for three additional years of full-time study, for a total of eight semesters, in residence at Dickinson or in a Dickinson study-abroad program. Scholarships will be renewed each year based on the recipient's continued enrollment and maintenance of at least a 3.0 cumulative GPA. Questions about scholarships should be directed to the Office of Admissions.
The John Dickinson Scholarship
$20,000 per year
The John Dickinson Scholarship is worth $80,000 for eight semesters of full-time study at the college. It is Dickinson's highest recognition for academic achievement and leadership. Recipients are top students in a challenging high-school curriculum, demonstrated through significant advanced coursework and most grades at the A (4.0) level. They typically have scores of 1410+ on the SAT (Evidence Based Reading and Writing plus Math) or an ACT composite score of 30+, and show evidence of leadership in school or community activities.
The Benjamin Rush Scholarship
$15,000 per year
The Benjamin Rush Scholarship is worth $60,000 for eight semesters of full-time study at the college. Recipients are strong students in a challenging high-school curriculum, demonstrated through significant advanced coursework and most grades at the A (4.0) level. They typically have scores of 1410+ on the SAT (Evidence Based Reading and Writing plus Math) or an ACT composite score of 30+, and show evidence of leadership in school or community activities.
The John Montgomery Scholarship
$10,000 per year
The John Montgomery Scholarship is worth $40,000 for eight semesters of full-time study at the college. Recipients have strong grades in a challenging high-school curriculum and demonstrate exceptional talent in any of a variety of areas, including the performing or studio arts, foreign-language acquisition, independent research or writing, leadership on a regional or national level, etc.
The Founders Scholarship
$7,500 per year
The Founders Scholarship is worth $30,000 for eight semesters of full-time study at the college. Recipients have strong grades in a challenging high-school curriculum and demonstrate strong leadership, service and commitment in high-school and/or community life.
Students may hold only one of the above scholarships.
Special Opportunities
Stafford Scholarship
The Inge Paul and John R. Stafford Scholarship funds the John Dickinson Scholarship ($20,000 per year) for a superior student in the life sciences and provides an additional $3,000 in total research support to be used any time during the scholar's four years at Dickinson. Stafford scholars are advised by a faculty mentor and have multiple research opportunities. We expect that this experience will prepare Stafford scholars to be competitive for prestigious postgraduate awards, such as the Fulbright and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute fellowships and, ultimately, a career in research or medicine. Recipients meet John Dickinson Scholarship requirements and demonstrate a strong interest and intention to major in the life sciences.
National Merit Finalists
$2,000 per year
John Dickinson, Benjamin Rush or John Montgomery scholars who are National Merit Finalists and who designate Dickinson as their first-choice college with the National Merit Scholarship Corporation by March of their senior year will be eligible to receive a supplemental scholarship of $2,000 per year, in addition to their John Dickinson, Benjamin Rush or John Montgomery scholarship.
Public Service Fellowship
In this innovative program, exceptional high-school graduates earn tuition credits of up to $40,000 while working to improve the society in which they live. Each year of meaningful public-service work—including service as a Global Citizen Year Fellow—earns participants a $10,000 credit toward their tuition at Dickinson. Upon matriculation, Public Service Fellows receive priority consideration for positions as resident advisors, community advisors and other opportunities to further reduce tuition and fees and gain additional leadership experience. Learn more.
Community College Partnership Program
Recognizing that the path to a four-year degree can be blazed not only from high school, Dickinson has established a Community College Partnership Program that goes well beyond the passive articulation agreements found between most community and four-year colleges. Dickinson's collaboration allows students to reduce total educational expenses by attending one of our region's five top community colleges during their first two years. While there, they participate in an honors program and receive academic advising from Dickinson staff. After successful completion of the program, the students transfer to Dickinson for their final two years and receive a $15,000 scholarship for each of their two remaining years. Dickinson has partnered with two community colleges in Maryland—Howard Community College and Montgomery College—and two in Pennsylvania—Montgomery County Community College and Northampton Community College. Learn more.
Yellow Ribbon Program
Dickinson's historic mission of educating engaged citizens and leaders has driven participation in a government program allowing post-9/11 United States veterans—and in some cases, their dependents—to enroll with significantly reduced tuition. Eligible students admitted to the program can receive Dickinson grants and scholarships which, when coupled with educational grants from the VA and other sources, means veterans can attend Dickinson tuition-free. They may also receive a stipend for books and supplies. This initiative opens new doors for veterans and provides them with unprecedented access to higher education. Learn more.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Weather Impacts Coyotes, Jacks
The major winter storm battering parts of the Midwest and Northeast has impacted the University of South Dakota and South Dakota State basketball schedules.
The start time for Saturday's women's basketball game between the Coyotes and Cleveland State, originally scheduled for 2:00pm, has been pushed back to 6:30pm. The change allows Cleveland State extra time to travel to Vermillion through weather conditions that are making air travel difficult.
The women's game will follow the men's basketball game between USD and Iowa Wesleyan which will tip off at 4:15 p.m. Both contests will be held inside the DakotaDome.
Weather conditions in the Northeast have forced South Dakota State and Buffalo to indefinitely postpone the men's basketball game originally scheduled for Friday in Buffalo, N.Y. The two teams continue to work on rescheduling the game for a later date.


text:
19. The Messenger Hormone's Journey within the Cell
When any organ wishes to produce a given protein, it sends a message to the cells. When the "messenger" molecule reaches the cell, it attaches to the antenna on the cell membrane. During this bonding, it transmits the message it carries by its very presence to the antenna, which then forwards the information it has received to its "tail" in the interior of the cell. The antennas, which at the outset were in a single state, now come together in paired groups. Enzymes in the body region alter the shape of the tail section by adding phosphate to it, in a process known as phosphorylation. All these processes are to summon the proteins in the cell known as communication molecules (Figure 81).
Several molecules and proteins provide technical support for this system. At this stage, molecules known as GTP—and those proteins referred to as G for short—have an important effect. If the system is to function effectively, it is vital that several factors all enter into play at the right moment (Figure 82).
It is evident that this communication system, whose first stage is described here in general terms, could hardly have come into being spontaneously, and that the unconscious atoms comprising the cell could not have thought up such a system. It is Almighty God Who created this perfect system from nothing. God is He Who inspires all living things with what they need to do and Who keeps them under His control at all moments.
1. Protein
2. Message-sending cell
3. Receptor cell
4. Messenger molecules
5. Signal paths
6. Secreted protein
7. DNA in the nucleus
8. Activated gene
Figure 81: Communications inside the cell begin with molecules such as hormones that bear messages. Receptors in the cell membrane receive the message and forward it to the molecules inside the cell responsible for communications. This leads to the activation of various genes in the DNA and the production of whatever protein the message specified.
Figure 82: Many proteins and molecules provide technical assistance when the message regarding protein production reaches the cell, and then the DNA. The way that molecules—devoid of any awareness, intelligence or consciousness—behave with such marvelous harmony and collaboration is one of the clear manifestations of God's matchless creation and omniscience. God is the Almighty, the Sublime and Powerful.


text:
- Home
- Company
Customized Products
- Facial Care
- Body Care
- Hand & Feet Care
- Hair Care
- Mom & Baby Care
- Special Care
- Soap series
- Makeup
- Pet Shampoo
Skin Care
- Superconducting Essence Facial Mask
- BIOCROWN Essence Facial Mask
- Sunscreen Series
- Cleansing Oil Series
- Handmade Soap Series
- ALA Anti-aging Series
- Serum Seires
- Snail & Caviar Series
- Special Skin Care Series
- Ultra Moisturizing Series
- Herbaceous Skin Care Series
- Camu-C Brighting Series
- Luxury Gold Skin Care Series
- Pomegranate Bath Series
- Three Step Acne Killer Set
- Jelly Gel Exfoliating Scrub
- Ultra Repair Hydrating Essence Oil
- International Beauty Expo Malaysia 2019
- Congratulation!Our Bio-cellulose sheet mask obtained EU PIF!
- Beauty Professional Philippines 2018
- Beauty Professional Indonesia 2018
- COSMOPROF North America Las Vegas 2018
- Vietnam's Premier International Beauty Show 2017
- ASEAN Beauty 2017
- Beauty Professional Malaysia 2017
- Cosme Tech 2016
- Cosmoprof Asia Hong Kong
- Bio Taiwan 2015
- China Beauty Expo 2015
- Cosme Tech 2014
- Cosmoprof Asia Hong Kong
- Bio Taiwan 2014
- China Beauty Expo 2014
- Bio Taiwan 2013
- China Beauty Expo 2013
- Taiwan Souvenir 2013
- Taiwan International Herb & Natural Products Expo
- Bio Taiwan 2012
- China Beauty Expo 2012
- Contacts
Makeup Cleansing Oil
Biocrown makes Makeup Remover, Cleansing Oil, Cleansing Liquid are excellent makeup removal solution, which provides the excellent cleaning ability without irritating or drying out the skin.More
Bio Cellulose Mask
The finest bio cellulose is soft and moisturizing, and enables the skin to breatheMore
BIOCROWN Beauty Professional Indonesia 2018 Introduction
Biocrown Biotechnology Co., Ltd. is Taiwan supplier and manufacturer in Beauty Care Industry. BIOCROWN has been offering our customers high quality skin care products, face mask, facial cream, whitening soap, skin whitening cream, herbal care skin care products, eye cream, collagen lifting face cream, skin concealer, body scrub since 1977. With both advanced technology and 39 years experience, BIOCROWN always make sure to meet each customer's demand.
Beauty Professional Indonesia 20182018/09/13 BIOCROWN
From Sept 13,2018 to September 15, the Beauty Professional Indonesia 2018 will be held at Jakarta Convention Center. Biocrown Team will be there during exhibition. Welcome to visit us.
Venue: Indonesia-Jakarta Convention Center
Booth No.: B14
You could see more information from the official web site of Beauty Professional Indonesia
- Gallerys


text:
You might know Adam Levine Or his band, Maroon 5, singers of the catchiest white-people music of our time. Or maybe you've seen him on The Voice, where he is the unrepentantly bro-y coach with the groomed stubble. Maybe you even own some music—chances seem good, since people have downloaded more Maroon 5 songs than songs by Justin Timberlake or Jay Z. Chances are also good that you find him strangely uncool. Because, well, there's just something about him, and he knows it
*Adam Levine wrote this headline. See what we mean about being self-aware?
July 2014
Video: Life Advice with Adam Levine
"Okay. Let's get into this: What are the characteristics of a douchebag?" says Adam Levine, pushing aside the remains of his egg-white omelet. We're sitting at Blu Jam, a diner near where he lives in the nondescript Los Angeles suburbs. We've been discussing his role in Begin Again,the new movie musical in which he plays a character kinda like Adam Levine: a talented, ambitious indie musician who, after achieving mainstream success, starts acting a little bit like a, well...you know. "Let's define this," says Levine, turning on that twinkly-eyed smile, the one that has brought many a groupie to her knees. At 35, Levine's face is still boyish, the biceps peeking out of his red Hawaiian shirt formidably toned. Later someone will post a sneaky cell-phone photo of this exact moment on Twitter, and a fan will comment: "Damnnn."
"A douchebag is a really specific thing," he says. "Okay?"
The waiter comes over.
"We're talking about douchebags," Levine tells him.
"Oh, okay," the waiter says. "That's a long conversation."
"No shit!" Levine says. "I just said the same thing."
Adam Levine is one of the biggest pop stars in the country, if not the world. Along with his band, Maroon 5, he's responsible for some of the most ubiquitous earworms of the past decade, songs like "This Love" and "Moves Like Jagger," one of which you're probably humming right now just by virtue of having read the words. His enthusiastic coaching of aspiring singers on The Voice has made Levine a household name. He has his own microphone-shaped fragrance and a clothing line at Kmart selling faster than you can say "Coachella-inspired," and he has deployed his considerable personality to sell acne medication, smartphones, and of course, his own music. In 2012, 5 million people downloaded Maroon 5's "Payphone," a fact that is especially impressive when you consider most of them probably don't even know what a pay phone is.
And yet.
"Douchebag," Adam Levine says. "What is a douchebag?" Well. The thing is, there are a number of people who might say a douchebag is Adam Levine. Have said it, in fact. There it is, right in a BuzzFeed headline: "Adam Levine Is the Definition of 'Hot Douche.' " One could argue that on the Internet, everyone is being called a douchebag by someone. But perhaps more so than it is for any other celebrity, the word douchebag and its variants are applied to Adam Levine in an almost proprietary way. ("Lord of the Douche," one blog calls him; another refers to him as "a ridiculous douchenozzle.") Last year, when People magazine named him the Sexiest Man Alive, even the website Jezebel, which had in the past creatively avoided the D-word by dubbing him "the human equivalent of testing positive for chlamydia," called it "a stunning victory for douchebags everywhere."
So far, in my experience, Levine has been perfectly pleasant. Delightful, even. He is quick and witty and unfailingly polite. But there are arguments to be made: He put a grand piano in his bedroom. He rose to fame on a song in which he basically describes fingering his ex-girlfriend. He appeared on Lindsay Lohan's Sex List. He once told a reporter yoga was good for "fuuuuck-ing," while thrusting his hips around on a private jet. He makes the kind of music, catchy but deeply uncool, that people hate themselves for singing along to. Not long after our interview, he will dye his hair Eminem blond and tweet a picture of it, making a face that is unironically Blue Steel.
"Would it be really easy to assume that I was a douchebag?" he says. "Definitely. One hundred percent. But that doesn't mean that I am." He thinks for a minute. "Or maybe I am, I don't know."
He takes a long sip of green juice. "Okay," he says. "So I'm gonna get really intricately self-reflective right now and ask myself the hard questions, to find out, once and for all, definitively, whether or not I'm a douchebag."
Before he can embark on this soul-searching, the hostess approaches us. "I'm so sorry?" she says. "But I just wanted to let you know, there is a bunch of paparazzi outside?"
"Really?" Levine says, sounding genuinely surprised. Earlier, he had extolled the virtues of living in the Valley. "No one ever follows me," he'd said as we drove in his black Ferrari through a landscape of foot-massage parlors and nail salons. "Because, truthfully, it's not the most desirable place for a lot of people to go."
Attention is not something Levine shirks. ("I love attention" is one of the quotes on BuzzFeed's "15 Quotes to Remind You That Adam Levine Is Still a Douche.") But he prefers it to be on his terms. "Every part of my being is allergic to walking out of a place and seeing them," he says of the paparazzi. Then he cheers up. "It's fun if you look at it like a spy movie," he says. " 'We're trapped in here! How do we get out?' "
He picks up his phone. "Hey, bro," he says to his assistant, Shawn. "So there's like 7,000 paparazzi outside. Maybe two of you guys can roll over, and one of you can grab the Ferrari, and then we can just split? Thanks, bro." He clicks off, and a few minutes later, Shawn, a gentle lion of a man with a Jesus ponytail, has pulled up outside and hustled us into his Dodge Magnum.
"Shawn, are you experiencing inordinate amounts of pain?" Levine asks as we pull out of the parking lot. Levine recently became engaged, and over the past few days, in preparation for his wedding, he, Shawn, and some of his other guy friends have been doing P90X-style workouts together.
"I'm a little sore," says Shawn. "I feel like I'm already buffer. I think three days is enough."
Levine laughs. "You gotta start your own workout program and call it 'Three Days Is Enough.' " He swivels his head as we pass a strip mall. "Oh, I guess the hearing-aid store went out of business," he says. "That's a shame."
"We should get that space and open a store," says Shawn.
"We should totally open a store," says Levine with conviction. "What kind of store?"
"Just random shit. Like a mix between like a liquor store and like a pharmacy and like a...a pizzeria. We'd have tacos."
"We would have weed, tacos, and some clothes, and some golf stuff. We'd call it Weed and Golf," Levine says.
"And Tacos," adds Shawn.
"I like tacos," Levine says happily as we pull up to the house, a big white wedding cake of a compound whose past occupants include Charlie Sheen and Denise Richards. It's a rental—Levine and his bros are only living in it until contractors complete work on a place for him and his fiancée, supermodel Behati Prinsloo. "These are kind of the last days of the frat house," he says, waxing nostalgic about the costume parties, and the toga party, and the gigantic pirate party, after which they kept finding swords and eye patches and gold coins at the bottom of the pool for weeks. He grabs a coconut water from the fridge and gingerly eases his body onto a floral-upholstered bench in the breakfast nook. The house came fully furnished by its owner, a Famous TV Personality who favors the English country style and anything with inspirational wisdom printed on it. Levine's only contribution to the decor is a plaque above the sink, a gift from his former Voice colleague CeeLo Green, sentimentally inscribed THE ONLY REASON I WOULD KICK YOU OUT OF BED IS TO FUCK YOU ON THE FLOOR.
A cleaning lady brushes by with a bucket. "You know what the greatest thing about what's happened to me is?" Levine says. "I don't have to do my own laundry. I'd always think to myself,I can't wait for the time when I don't have to do laundry anymore."
To be clear: Nothing just "happened" to Adam Levine. Maintaining his level of stadium-filling, heart-palpitating, cash-money-making stardom for a dozen years is not something that justhappens. In fact, people who act like fame and fortune just found them are kind of a pet peeve of his. "'Oh yeah, this just happened, man, I didn't try at all,' " he says mockingly. "It's total nonsense."
Levine is talented. "He sounds Autotuned even when he isn't," says his guitarist, James Valentine. But becoming a mega pop star at a time when that isn't even supposed to be possible takes work.
"I've worked hard," he says, "but I've also had a lot of wonderful things happen to me. I haven't been dealt a hard hand." This, Levine reckons, is probably his Original Douche Sin: "I'm not an easy guy to root for."
Consider the insanely easy big break of his first band, which Levine and his friends formed as teenagers in Brentwood, the wealthy Beverly Hills-ish enclave where he went to school. "It's actually—it's ridiculous," says Mickey Madden, Maroon 5's bassist, about the discovery of the band that was then called Kara's Flowers. He describes a scene that sounds straight out ofBeverly Hills, 90210: "We were playing at a house party in Malibu. I guess we were freshmen or sophomores in high school. And this producer was like literally walking his dog and heard us, and he came in and watched the show." The next thing they knew, they were on the actual 90210,performing at the Peach Pit and getting excused early from class so they could go into the studio with the guy who produced Green Day. But their album flopped. "We were shitty," says Levine. "We were like a shitty version of Weezer, you know, trying to be alternative radio."
Still, he felt, the band was destined for success. It's not like he believes in "The Secret or all that bullshit, which is total bullshit," he says, but "energetically, I always felt really positive, like good things were going to happen." All his band had to figure out was what kind of band they were going to be. "It's funny to listen to their recordings from back then," says Valentine, who joined the band in 2001, around the time they changed their name to Maroon 5. "Adam was trying to sing like Eddie Vedder, which is funny, because Adam is not a baritone. Then they went through a Green Day sort of punk phase. Then they went way out and were into a Britpop period. And then they had a weird left turn into like jam-band stuff, like Phish and Dave Matthews Band." Then Levine discovered Stevie Wonder and had a kind of revelation. Like Stevie, he has a high-pitched register, a voice that, he found, was best suited to bouncy, Motown-inflected pop.
When Maroon 5 debuted their new, funky, Stevie-inspired sound, their fans and friends in what Valentine calls "cool bands" were horrified. Not only was the music vaguely embarrassing in the way it always is when a skinny white guy imitates Michael Jackson; it was the kind of music you could imagine being played in a rock block with Britney Spears, not on KROQ. It sounded, suspiciously, like they were trying to be successful.
Which they were. "I wanted to become a successful musician," Levine says now. "It wasn't like now, when kids are like, 'I want to be a famous slut. Or whatever I can possibly be famous for.' I wanted to be a famous musician."
It's hard to remember, but this was in a time when being a slacker was something to aspire to. Saying you wanted to be successful was like announcing that you loved hair metal or shopping at Structure. Sure, lots of people did, but it wasn't cool. "That's the '90s in a nutshell," says Levine. "Oh, you can't, like, try. 'Oh, no, I could never pursue mass worldwide success! No, that wouldn't be cool.' "
Between the irresistible pop hooks, Levine's boy-band good looks, and the borderline-filthy lyrics, Maroon 5's first album went over with the Top 40-consuming public like Fifty Shades of Grey at an administrative-assistants convention.
When the album went triple platinum, Levine pretty much reacted the way anyone who has spent twenty-five years dreaming of being a rock star might. He moved into the Chateau Marmont, where rumor had it he personally auditioned every celebutante crotch flashed in the mid-aughts: Lohan, Jessica Simpson, Paris Hilton, and sundry other blondes. "Maybe," he told an interviewer about why he slept with so many women, "the reason I was promiscuous is that I love them so much."
"Um, all right," says Levine when presented with this evidence pointing toward douchehood. "All of a sudden, I had money in my bank account. I hadn't had a break in a long time. And I went a little fucking nuts. You know? And good," he adds defensively. "I deserved to go a little bit nuts. And I had the time of my life." Fair enough. But dude: I love women?
"I didn't say it like that," he protests. "I didn't say it like Fabio."
He flops back and props a pillow under his head. "Men are not as sophisticated as women," he goes on. "They're not as mature as women. They're not as connected with their emotions as women. There's a very Neanderthal quality that still exists in a lot of men. There's the carnal shit you can't deny. And if you're in the public eye, to me, it's very boring to say what you have to say and be media trained to the extent that you don't ever reveal any truth. There was a time in my life when I lived probably a bit more on the primal level. And it was amazing."
Ever since these youthful indiscretions, Levine has been doing what feels like a long walk of shame. "That was kind of the foundation of all the negative shit I still get," he posits. "I was out there having fun, you know. I didn't give a shit, and I got burned for it." He goes to the fridge, opens another bottle of coconut water, and chugs it. "People change; people grow up, get more self-aware and in tune with all this shit."
And his recent birthday, he says, made him more in tune with all this shit. "Being 35, as a dude, is basically the time in your life where you say, 'Am I gonna be a kid for twenty more years? Or am I gonna be a grown-up?' " he says. "It's almost like you think to yourself, God, you know, I don't want to be a 50-year-old dude trolling around a club in L.A."
When it comes to his fiancée, Behati Prinsloo, Levine is clearly besotted. "She's the coolest person in the world," he says. But it is also true that "B," as he calls her, is the third Victoria's Secret model he has dated in five years, another data point that lends credence to the image of him as what the Los Angeles Times calls "a sexy creep."
At mention of "the model thing," as he puts it, Levine's hackles are raised. "I don't date what the person does," he says. "I date the fucking person. You know what I mean? I could have been a zitty teenager and walked into a Tower Records, and we would have talked about Pearl Jam, and we would have fallen in love when we were 15. And that's when you know. It's like, oh, my God, game over."
And if he had to date "the entire Victoria's Secret catalog," as his Voice co-star Carson Daly put it, to find her? "So what?" Levine says, unscrewing another coconut water.
"Preference should never be looked down upon," he opines. "Unless it's based on something really shitty. I'm not saying I have a preference, but like, I want to date someone... Listen, there are a lot of women in this country, in many countries, who date men for their money. Okay? That's despicable. Right? That's not what we're talking about here. Whatever does it for you, man. I don't like feet. You know what I mean? But some people do. Some people have fucking foot fetishes. And it's weird to me. But I don't have to deal with it, because I don't have that. You know?"
He stands up. "You know what I'm saying, man," he says. "It'll all make sense somehow."
Suit: Salvatore Ferragamo. Shirt: Alexander Mcqueen. Bow Tie And Pocket Square: Tom Ford. Shoes: Johnston & Murphy. Sunglasses: Ralph Lauren. Watch: Rolex.
He heads to the bathroom to process all the coconut waters, leaving me to ponder these deep questions alone. Back at the diner, he'd come up with three indicators of douchiness. A lack of self-awareness. "That's big," he said. Levine is definitely self-aware. Arrogance. "I'm not arrogant," he protested. "I'm cocky. It's different. Cocky is playful." The third was insecurity. "Or masking deep insecurity with too much security," he said. Arguably, posing naked on the cover of a Russian magazine with his last Victoria's Secret model girlfriend could fit the bill. But it doesn't really. "I'm confident," he said. "Some people don't like confidence. They resent confidence." This is true, and it may be the main reason Levine is so often slapped with the douchebag label. Modern celebrities are supposed to be hiding cellulite and driving Priuses, not driving flamboyant Ferraris and dating models and exposing extremely enviable, well-toned abs. Even though all those things, like weed and tacos, are objectively awesome. It's not cool.
"He's very defiant in doing a lot of the things that make him happy," says Valentine. "Like, 'I want to live the life I want to and I am not going to feel any guilt about it.' And other people don't really want to root for a guy like that."
Just as, back in the '90s, when Levine violated the rules of budding rock stardom by acknowledging his ambition, he has since broken the Just Like Us vow of celebrity: Never act like you are having too much fun. "Every day," he'd said to me, "every single day, at some point, I think to myself, this is so great. It's so much fun."
Now Levine returns from the bathroom. "You know what the gist of this article is?" he says. "Your opening line can be: 'You don't have to like me, but I'd prefer it if you did.' That's kind of how I feel. I'm not the easiest person to love right off the bat, you know. If I knew everyone in the world, they would love me. Every single last fucking one of them."
A morning session of yoga at the Mercer hotel has loosened up his P90X'ed body and left Levine limber enough to be able to give a small wave to the Maroon 5 fans clustered outside the red carpet at the Tribeca Film Festival premiere of Begin Again. "Ow," he moans a little, under their deafening screeches.
In the film, Levine plays Dave, a struggling singer-songwriter who becomes an overnight success. At first, says the director, John Carney, "it felt a bit stunty" to cast Levine in the role. But he says Levine was actually pretty good at making the character, who cheats on his indie-singer girlfriend, played by Keira Knightley, and ultimately chooses the wide world of rock stardom over their small life together, seem sympathetic. "He wasn't totally black-and-white, you know, and a lot of that is due to Adam," says Carney. "You see him being tempted by these things he comes across, and you understand why it's appealing. Even as you sort of want to strangle him."
Levine skips the screening—he's already seen the movie ("I was surprised at how not-sucky I was," he says)—and instead has a meeting with his managers about doing more film work. Then, at the afterparty at Tribeca Grill, he and Behati Prinsloo are wrapped around each other in a banquette, giggling, when Levine's publicist interrupts. Bill de Blasio, the newly elected mayor of New York City, wants to meet him. Levine untangles himself and turns on his twinkliest smile. "You were great," the mayor tells him. "You really inhabited the role." Then the mayor puts on a stern look and mock scolds him over the douche sins of his character. "I'm still kind of pissed off at you, to be honest," he says, laughing. "What a jerk you are!"
Levine keeps twinkling, but now his eyes have narrowed ever so slightly. After all, his character just wanted to be successful. What's so bad about that?


text:
Accessibility tools
Service tools
Language selector
Navigation path
Left navigation
Additional tools
Brussels, 15 September 2009
Riga to be the European Capital of Culture in Latvia in 2014
The panel responsible for selecting the European Capital of Culture for 2014 recommended yesterday in Riga that the title be awarded to Riga. The other Latvian cities still in contention were Cesis and Liepaja. The formal nomination of Riga by the EU Council of Ministers will probably be in May 2010.
Ján Figel', the Member of the European Commission responsible for education, training, culture and youth, commented as follows: "I am delighted with Riga's success and would like to congratulate the local authorities and the team that prepared the application. Riga has great potential for being the European Capital of Culture. Bearing this title for one year will certainly place this city in the spotlight and create enormous potential for it to develop locally and raise its profile across Europe. But success will not be automatic: to benefit fully, Riga will have to develop its programme for 2014 and be given all the political and economic support needed. This is the beginning of a great adventure!"
Pursuant to the Decision establishing the European Capitals of Culture 1 , LATVIA and SWEDEN will be the two Member States hosting a European Capital of Culture in 2014. On 8 September Umeå was recommended as the European Capital of Culture for Sweden.
The European Capitals of Culture are chosen in two phases: a pre-selection phase, resulting in a shortlist of cities, followed by a final selection nine months later. The two cities chosen are then officially nominated by the Council of Ministers of the EU.
Applications are examined by an international panel made up of thirteen members, six appointed by the Member State concerned and the remaining seven by the European Institutions. They have to examine the applications on the basis of the criteria laid down in the above-mentioned Decision.
The cities vying for the title have to prepare a cultural programme meeting fairly strict criteria relating to the European dimension of the event and the participation of its citizens. The European dimension is illustrated by the subjects chosen and the cooperation between artists and players in the cultural field in various countries, all working together for the event. The programme must also have a lasting impact and contribute to the long-term cultural, economic and social development of the city.
The members of the panel appointed by the European Institutions are:
Following Linz (Austria) and Vilnius (Lithuania) this year, the future European Capitals of Culture will be: Essen (Germany), Pécs (Hungary) and Istanbul (Turkey) in 2010; Tallinn (Estonia) and Turku (Finland) in 2011; Guimarães (Portugal) and Maribor (Slovenia) in 2012; and Marseille (France) and Kosice (Slovakia) in 2013.
To find out more:
Decision No 1622/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006
Side Bar


text:
greenoaks wrote:the op wants this because it is difficult to always click the correct button on his little screen. if extra buttons are to be added then there are many other people who may want one to cover their misclicks.
so lets fill those tiny screens with buttons. or you could just suck it up.
But his suggestion doesn't change the game. It would be like playing risk with your friends in RL, where you pause while considering on whether you want to reinforce, or continue attacking where suddenly you see a great opportunity across the board, where you can attack. Now If I was told I couldn't attack ppl b/c of the fact that I paused too long it would make me mad. Its simple, If you reinforce you can't attack anymore, but as long as you haven't started reinforcing technically the only thing that's keeping you from attacking is that you clicked a button called "end attacks." Logically if you haven't reinforced then in RL Risk you may still attack, I don't see why its such a problem to make it the same here. Its not an undo button its a oh hey, I just spotted an opportunity elsewhere where I could attack and set my self up nicely next turn kind of button.


text:
Are Trainers Meeting Clients' Expectations?
One day I sat down with Lenny Parracino from the National Academy of Sports Medicine team over lunch. He asked me to define a personal trainer's job description. After thinking about it, I said, "A personal trainer's job is to create individualized programs for each and every client."
That started me thinking, and I then began to examine what trainers were doing all over the United States and in other parts of the world. My conclusion was that less than 4 percent of the trainers I observed applied individualized programs for their clients.
Not totally convinced that this was a fair conclusion, our company held a competition for trainers this year. The trainers had to read a case study of a female client and, using the templates that we provided, they had to create a program based on that individual.
Out of 10,000 trainers who were exposed to this competition, we had five complete the template. Three applications for the competition came from within the United States. After that, I didn't need anymore evidence to back up my 4 percent theory!
So now the question has to be asked: "Should we be charging people anywhere from $50 to $100 dollars for a personal training session if we can't even provide them with the individualized program that is expected? Isn't meeting this expectation the responsibility of the club owners as well as the trainers?"
The last 24 months in the fitness industry has seen some amazing changes. Clubs now realize the benefit of having a well-developed personal training system with well-educated, professional trainers. It doesn't seem to be a coincidence that the clubs which generate the greatest revenue in training are the ones that have the most educated trainers.
Even though we now see clubs starting to develop personal training education budgets and bringing in educators to do presentations and workshops for the trainers, there is still a very large section of our industry that doesn't have an interest in the education or quality of their trainers or the service that they provide. They will, on the other hand, accept the increasing profits from personal training within their clubs and encourage their members to become involved in this revenue creator.
Why is it that everything we accept as a model for revenue within our industry is looked at with short-term greed and not long-term vision?
We tend to want to bleed every last ounce out of anything that is new, rather than put back into it to watch it develop and grow, and provide greater yield in the long run. Will we ever learn from our mistakes?
Here is where the moral dilemma arises for club owners: Do you attempt to educate trainers on developing individualized programming skills and push on-going education, or do you ride the wave of personal training interest, milking it for all it's worth, resulting in an overpriced and undervalued service?
How and what we choose to do now will greatly affect whether personal training is seen as a professional service worthy of extra expenditure when joining a health club, or something that is seen as a waste of money.
Isn't it time for all personal trainers to start to deliver the service that we promote and create revenue from, and take the responsibility of ensuring that this service reaches a consistent minimum standard, if nothing else? Your credibility and our industry depend on it.
Richard Boyd is president of Personal Training on the Net. Servicing more than two-thirds of the United States and world's major club chains, his company is reportedly the world's largest educational resource for personal trainers. Boyd can be contacted at email@example.com.


text:
'Navigation instructions.'
'The is available by tapping on the upcoming turn icon, and displays a detailed view of the next turn.'
'solid navigation'
'platform offering extremely high performance and sensitivity'
ReviewGist helps you find the best products to buy by making sense of online reviews.
We are currently aggregating 376,500 reviews
covering over 29,474 products.
© 2019 ReviewGist.com. All Rights Reserved.


text:
Funday Monday is giving away a Candwich, the revolutionary new sandwich in a can, and we want to make sure it only goes to someone with the sense of humor to appreciate it.
So, we're making Bluffton's funniest people duke it out over it. Send in your funniest joke to firstname.lastname@example.com or post it on our facebook wall at facebook.com/FundayMonday
Your jokes will go before a panel of comedy experts and the winner receives their very own grape PB&J Candwich as a prize for their legendary humor.


text:
"Catching Fire," the second film in "The Hunger Games" trilogy, comes out in one year -- on Nov. 22, 2013. The cast is currently filming in Maui, Hawaii, and here are some photos from the movie-in-progress.
Jennifer Lawrence filming a scene from "Catching Fire" in Hawaii.
Entertainment Weekly compared Lawrence's costume to "a wetsuit made out of a roller blade you owned in 1992."
Lawrence takes up her bow.
"Catching Fire" begins after Katniss has won the Hunger Games and must take a victory tour of Panem's districts with co-winner Peeta. But they aren't through fighting for their lives. The Quarter Quell -- aka, the 75th annual Hunger Games, aka "Hunger Games All-Stars" -- rears its ugly head, because we can't have two more books in the "Hunger Games" series with no Hunger Games.
New characters will include Mags and Finnick. The photo above is believed to show Lawrence with Lynn Cohen, who plays Mags, an 80-something tribute.
New characters, of course, will be introduced in "Catching Fire." Lynn Cohen, 68, will play 80-year-old tribute Mags, from District 4. She volunteers for the games to replace Annie, the troubled true love of the other District 4 tribute, Finnick Odair (played by Sam Claflin).
Are you excited to see "Catching Fire"? Tell us on Facebook.
Related content:
- 'Honest' trailer for 'Hunger Games' pokes fun at film, stars
- 'Hunger Games' wins big at Teen Choice Awards
- Calvin Klein releases $5,000 Katniss-inspired dress
- Lawrence slammed by PETA for squirrel-skinning joke
- Katniss Barbie doll is well-armed
- For $1.4 million, you can buy District 12


text:
Evansville Welcomes Back President and Mrs. Fordby Tom Runge • August 9, 2005 Share:
August 3, 2005. The Evansville association gave Anne and Andy Ford a very warm welcome back to Evansville. Almost 60 alumni, parents, current students, and incoming freshmen gathered for a great evening at the Evansville Country Club.
Andy provided the group with an update on the College ranging from the new incoming class to the construction on campus. He also pointed out the great things happening at the Schroeder Career Center.
Tom Topper '70, local association president and past-president of the National Association of Wabash Men, served as the emcee for the evening. Many thanks go to Tom and to John H. Schroeder '42 and John C. Schroeder '69 for all their assistance in making the evening a great success.
For the photo album, click here.