David Giertz offers profound financial advice to Floridians

Giertz is the president of distribution and sales at the Nationwide Financial Distributors. He compiled a research that was backed up by the Nationwide financial retirement institute. Its conclusions were that individuals do not seek advisory about their social security. This is a very important aspect which most advisors neglect talking to their clients about. He also added that the survey also found out that 4 out of 5 people will change their advisors if they were not talking to them about social security. Giertz is of the opinion that most advisors might avoid talking to clients about social security because it is a complex topic. David Giertz believes that understanding the rules for social security and building confidence around them is very important for financial advisors. David recommends that financial advisors should take a keen interest in social security. As a financial advisor, David Giertz believes that to optimize the retirement income of a client’s social security is very vital.

Age is a significant factor to consider on the subject of social security benefits. The pensions that our grandparents and parents had is disappearing and it is essential to come up with a retirement income plan that optimizes social security. A high percentage of those retired are receiving pension less than they expected and the number grows yearly. According to a study conducted, most people who are 50 years of age especially those that are yet to go for retirement could not identify the factors that determined their social securities. Though one is eligible for benefits of social security at age 62, it’s good to wait or delay the benefits until the full retirement age. This age ranges from 65 to 67 years depending on the year of birth. It is essential to understand that the benefits are reduced when they are taken out before full retirement age. If you also delay taking your benefits after full retirement age, they grow by 8% of the total amount every year.

The social security benefits are also taxed. This mainly happens when one has not attained full retirement age. However, once one attains full retirement age, the income is not reduced by taxation. It is likely that most people may start using their social security earlier than the full retirement age. This might be due to unexpected life events such as sickness. In a study, it was found out that 37% of retirees do not live through retirement as expected due to health conditions. Those with financial advisors are less likely to experience these hardships during retirement.

PPP, Rio de Janerio’s unique approach, From Felipe Montoro Jens

The city of Rio de Janerio is undergoing a huge undertaking that was a campaign promise by its current mayor Marcelo Crivella. The mayor is keeping his promise through construction, maintenance and other pedagogical services of educational equipment. This plan of expansion will result in 20 thousand day care centers, and 40 thousand preschool by the end of 2020, says Felipe Montoro Jens, Project of Infrastructure.

According to Felipe Montoro Jens, The International Finance Corporation (IFC) a sister company of the World Bank is providing consultant services to help formulate plans to expand the city nursery and preschools networks. IFC was hired for 2.3million Brazilian Real. The IFC contributes more than any other private entities in developing countries. IFC is committed to applying their financial resources, expertise, innovative thinking and global experience to help their partners overcome financial and operational challenges.

Then candidate for mayor of Rio de Janeiro, Marcelo Crivella made a commitment to invest heavily in the education sector. He then vowed to “create 20,000 new day care centers and 40,000 new pre-schools by 2020 via Public Private Partnerships. The private entities are responsible for construction and administration maintenance of the new childcare facilities as well as the educational facilities.

December 30, 2004 a Public Private Partnerships blue print was laid out. According to No. 11,079 general rules were established for bidding and contracting within the public administration. This law is an attempt to address the issue of the scarcity of funds available for development within the public or government sectors. The PPP established an agreement stating partnerships can be established between the Union, State, Federal Districts, Municipalities as well as private partners.

California Law Struck Down as Unconstitutional

As one of the biggest economies and most populated states in the country, California can seem like a land of its own. Whether its products “known to cause cancer in the state of California” or battles over sanctuary cities, the Golden State sets its own rules. It’s no surprise the state recently tried to limit IMDb’s right to free speech – but the results of the case are unexpected.


Because California is home to Hollywood, the state often finds itself advocating for the special interests of its most-taxed citizens. The California Attorney General, Xavier Becerra, recently joined up with SAG-AFTRA, a union for professional actors, to uphold a state law, AB1687. The law passed in 2016 but has been under an injunction since 2017. If allowed, the law would prevent the Internet Movie Database (IMDb), from publishing the real age of any actor who paid for a subscription to IMDbPro. Becarra and SAG-AFTRA argued that IMDbPro creates a special relationship between actors and IMDb.com, and this relationship limits IMDb’s free speech rights.


The same judge who put the law on hold last year has ruled against Becerra and SAG-AFTRA. Judge Vince Chhabria called AB1687 “clearly unconstitutional” according to the  Los Angeles Times.  IMDb has argued its right to free speech is violated by the law, and Judge Chhabria seems to agree. The Judge was particularly unmoved by the state’s argument that the law was necessary to protect actresses from age-related discrimination, calling that defense unclear.


SAG-AFTRA is already planning an appeal to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The guild issued a statement claiming Judge Chhabria failed to understand the central argument of the case. It’s unclear for Becerra will join in the appeal efforts.

Supreme Court Rules Guilty Pleas No Longer Bar Appeals

In the eyes of many lawyers, a guilty plea means the end of a case. Once the defendant accepts guilt and the court assigns a punishment, it’s time to file away any relevant documents, send out the final bills and move on to the next case. A recent Supreme Court decision, Class v. United States, No. 16-424, might change that.

According to the New York Times, some cases may still be appealed after a guilty plea is submitted. The justices voted 6-to-3 in favor of defendant Rodney Class’s right to appeal. Class had pled guilty to a crime after carrying guns and ammunition onto the National Capitol’s grounds. The weapons and ammo were in Class’s car.

Class originally pled guilty as part of a plea bargain. These deals, considered controversial by many, keep cases flowing through the justice system. Many prosecutors have argued it’s impossible to take every alleged criminal to trial. Plea bargains offer reduced punishment in exchange for an admission of guilt. Defendants benefit from lenient sentencing, and the state benefits by avoiding long, costly trials. Critics argue defendants are forced into the deals by impossibly high bail amounts and fears of vindictive sentencing by judges.

Before the Supreme Court’s ruling, accepting a plea bargain meant it was impossible to appeal. Now, defendants like Class will be able to appeal guilty pleas on constitutional bargains. Class had tried to argue he had a Second Amendment right to his firearms. The appeals court had denied his right to appeal the case.

Justice Breyer wrote the majority opinion. Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch and Chief Justice Roberts joined him. Justices Kennedy, Thomas and Alito dissented.

A Tweet Storm By Shervin Pishevar Might Provide The Answers To What Will Happen Next In The World

Looking for signs about what the latest upcoming events in the world are going to be? If you are someone who wants to invest and make profits doing so, this has to be part of what you are thinking about all the time. The better a person is at predicting the future like that, the more they can profit as a result. Someone who is serious about getting the best possible results like this should follow along with the thoughts of people like Shervin Pishevar.

For those who don’t know, Shervin Pishevar is someone who got invested in the likes of Uber and AirBnb early on in the development of those companies. He was in on the ground floor, so he ended up with some of the biggest profits of all from these companies. Shervin Pishevar has been someone who has been followed for his wisdom since that time.

Just earlier this month, he went on what is known as a “tweet storm”. This is when a person tweets out many times in a row about a certain topic or series of topics. In the case of Shervin Pishevar and this particular tweet storm, it went on for twenty-one hours. There were a total of fifty tweets that were included as a part of this, and there was plenty of information in the whole series. See This Page for related information.

It didn’t matter if you knew about Shervin Pishevar ahead of time and admired him already or not, you had to admit that doing that many tweets about one topic is something we can all appreciate. He showed a lot of diligence in doing so.

You can read over his tweets to see what you think about them. He started it all off by talking about how he believes the stock market will fall pretty dramatically in the not so distant future. He followed that up by discussing ways in which Bitcoin is not going to be the safe harbor investment that some had hoped it might be. He just continued on and on from there. His material may be controversial to some people, but it is hard to say that his information is not interesting.

See Also: https://eca.state.gov/fulbright/about-fulbright/j-william-fulbright-foreign-scholarship-board-ffsb/ffsb-members/shervin

Lime Crime’s Many Charitable Donations

Lime Crime is a wonderful company that specializes in cruelty free makeup. They offer a wide array of products such as lip sticks, eye shadows, hair dye, nails, and makeup brushes. They are also very active in charitable giving. Here are just some of the charities that Lime Crime has given donations to, and some information about each one.

One of the amazing charities that Lime Crime has given to is called the Red Cross. This organization helps when disasters occur. They also host bood drives and install free smoke alarms in people’s homes. Lime Crime has given many different times to this wonderful charity.

Another charity that they have given to is Girls Inc. This is a charity that helps little girls with their education. They give young girls opportunities to thrive in the world.

Lime Crime has also given money to Hola. This is a after school charity. They provide for children in the LA area.

Sanctuary for Families has been given a donation by Lime Crime. This organization helps battered women get back on their feet. They help survivors of abuse rebuild their lives.

When Hurricane Sandy hit Lime Crime helped by making a donation. They made a donation to Adopt NY. This is an organization that helped animals displaced by Hurricane Sandy.

Lastly, Lime Crime helped Bideawee by donating money to them. This is a no kill animal shelter that is located in the United States. They have made multiple donations to this charity.

Lime Crime cares a great deal about charities. They have given to six different charities since they began their business. They have given over sixteen thousand dollars total to all six of these wonderful organizations. If you are looking for a makeup brand that cares a lot about it’s community and animals then you should do business with Lime Crime. They cares a lot about animal causes and they donate a lot of money to these causes.

Federal Judge Strikes Down California Law That Let Actors Censor Their Age on IMDb

On Tuesday, a federal judge struck down a California law that let actors censor their age on the popular Internet Movie Database (IMDb) website, saying that the law was unconstitutional.

Vince Chhabria, who is a U.S. district court judge, said that Assembly Bill 1687 — which came into effect last year after Governor Jerry Brown signed it into law — directly restricted free speech and hence violated the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

In his decision, the judge wrote that the government was trying to restrict free speech, in an attempt to prevent illegal age discrimination. But he said that the problem was more of a gender issue than an age one. He also said that the law was both over-inclusive and under-inclusive. It was over-inclusive in the sense that it protects actors under the age of 40 who have not previously had such protection under the law, without providing sufficient reason as to why they need protection. At the same time, the judge noted that the law was also under-inclusive, in that it does not protect those who do not have a paid IMDb Pro account and those who have not specifically requested that IMDb conceal their ages.

The Screen Actors Guild (SAG) expressed disappointment at the decision and indicated that they will appeal it to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, who is the general counsel for the guild and its chief operating officer, said that the judge did not recognize or understand the impact age and gender discrimination has on actors. He further said that the discrimination was directly tied to IMDb insisting that actors list their ages on the site against their will.

In 2011, an actor sued IMDb, stating that she was not able to get work because the site listed her age. While the suit was ultimately unsuccessful, it led to the passing of last year’s law. In response to the law, IMDb — which is owned by Amazon — sued both the state of California and SAG.

Who Will Gain And Who Will Lose From The GOP Tax Overhaul

The GOP tax plan received a lot of attention and rightly so. It created significant changes for companies and completely overhauled existing tax law. It is expected that the new tax bill will produce some big winners and perhaps some losers. Let us look at who the expected winners will be and how the law will impact varying businesses.

The highlight of the new tax bill is undoubtedly the fact that corporate tax rates have been slashed from 35% to 21%. This is a significant drop of 14%. If you are a company making $100 million a year in corporate profits, then the new tax law will save you $14 million a year. Now that is not pennies or chump change isn’t it?

Given this fact, it is expected that the biggest beneficiaries of the new tax law will be companies that have been charged at the highest tax rate. Naturally, they will see the most significant reduction in the amount of taxes they pay on their profits. Whether they reinvest those tax savings back into the business, raise wages, give benefits, or pay shareholders is a whole different issue altogether. We have seen bonuses given out, and salaries increased for many employees though, which shows that the tax law has positively impacted certain sectors of the economy.

There is another component of the new tax law, that is often overlooked, but is very important, especially for large multinational corporations. The new tax bill lets multinational corporations such as Apple repatriate or bring back overseas profits at a one time significantly reduced rate. These companies can then use this overseas money to reinvest in the USA or just insert funds into the US economy. This can be a major deal and can further jump-start the economy.

As far as I can tell, for now, there is only one group of losers from new tax laws enacted by the GOP Congress and President Trump. State and local deductions will now be capped. This will result in some people in high tax states such as Illinois and California paying more money to the federal government than under previous tax statutes.

Supreme Court Declines Challenge to California Firearm Waiting Period Law

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme declined a challenge to a California law that requires a 10-day waiting period before purchasing a firearm. The law is intended to curb impulse purchases of guns by those who might be suicidal or violent, and legal experts see the court’s decision as a setback for gun rights activists, especially in light of the recent shootings in Parkland, Florida.

While the court signalled that it did not want to take an active role in the national debate on guns, the decision not to hear the case was not unanimous. Conservative stalwart Clarence Thomas not only strongly dissented against the court’s decision, he also stated that he believed that his colleagues on the court were being contemptuous of gun rights.

In a separate ruling, which will likely also roil gun activists, the court refused to take up a challenge filed by the National Rifleman’s Association (NRA) against the state of California. The NRA wanted the state to reduce fees on gun purchases that were being used by the state to track illegally owned guns.

In regards to the waiting period law, both individual gun owners and gun rights activists challenged the law, saying that it violated their Second Amendment right to bear arms. Though they did not seek to completely invalidate the law. They just wanted it to exclude those who already passed a background check and already owned guns.

Thomas, in his dissent, said that if a lower court had treated a different constitutionally guaranteed right in a similar manner, the Supreme Court would have surely got involved. He went on to say that the Second Amendment is not well favored by this particular court.

The Supreme Court has not taken up a major gun case in many years. Their last major rulings came in 2008 and 2010, when they unequivocally ruled that the Second Amendment guaranteed individuals the right to bear arms for the purposes of self defense.

Detainees Granted Permission to Continue With Forced-Labor Lawsuit

The United States Court of Appeals decided on Friday that ‘class certification’ for individuals that were forced to clean areas of a detention center while being detained by immigration officials should be upheld.

The Denver Post reports that the same class certification was upheld for individuals that provided voluntary work services for $1 a day.

The detainees, who are being held in Aurora, Colorado had their case heard by the 10th U.S. district court which is based in Denver. The argument on the part of the detainees was that the 62,000 member forced-labor class was threatened by a range of punishments including solitary confinement if not willingly cleaning the facilities for no compensation.

Legal representatives for the detainees say that this action is in violation of a federal law known as the Trafficking Victims Protection Act.

The second class of plaintiffs numbers approximately 2000 inmates that say they performed various duties for $1 a day when they as a group was not entitled to leave the facility to seek other employment. The class argues that the Geo Group, who was in charge of running the facility, were allowed to unlawfully enrich themselves due to not having to pay workers a lawful minimum wage for the state of Colorado.

The Geo Group made its argument by pointing out that the class designation granted the detainees is in error due to the fact each individual must demonstrate that they were forced to free or inexpensive labor.

The court was in disagreement with Geo Group stating that the claims of all members of the class followed the same general theory in that each member was forced work under threats of suffering negative consequences if not completing cleaning duties.

A statement by Outten & Golden, a law firm representing the detainees, expressed optimism at the fact that the ruling by the court will allow their clients to challenge the practice the Geo has enjoyed for some time now of exploiting the labor of detainees while also receiving money from taxpayers to house them.