General Discussion

Cass

(2,600 posts)

19. Save half your income?? Really? That is impossible for most people. nt

Reply to RB TexLa (Reply #5)

Sat May 12, 2012, 04:32 PM

May 2012

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

65 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Sweeping Social Security changes for women, caregivers and same-sex couples proposed [View all] eridani May 2012 OP

Sounds like good policies to implement Autumn May 2012 #1

some really good ideas. hopefully, they will at least be considered. northoftheborder May 2012 #2

Uh uh danbeee46 May 2012 #3

Which amounts to a huge motivation for me to change that n/t eridani May 2012 #4

+1,000. Giving in to the GOP by not voting is voting for misery. freshwest May 2012 #6

I agree with that but will just add that it also matters what kind of Democrats we elect. limpyhobbler May 2012 #16

If you stop spending money and save half your income, invested not even aggressively RB TexLa May 2012 #5

Hard to do when your full time job pays you below the poverty line. Scuba May 2012 #7

Many California residents pay more than 1/3 of their income on rent varelse May 2012 #10

I don't know anybody who can do that. Everybody is struggling to make it to the next paycheck. limpyhobbler May 2012 #14

That may be, cheapdate May 2012 #15

Save half your income?? Really? That is impossible for most people. nt Cass May 2012 #19

You don't understand how the majority of people live, do you? Matariki May 2012 #20

That's an opinion, alright etherealtruth May 2012 #21

Yeah, I hear a lot of especially affluent people say that Lydia Leftcoast May 2012 #24

Stop spending money on what? lunatica May 2012 #27

really dear annabanana May 2012 #35

Dear???? There is no reason to use a sexist term toward me. Using a racist or sexist term toward RB TexLa May 2012 #36

Yeah... Okey dokey. FogerRox May 2012 #41

Dude, my RENT is almost half my income. Hell Hath No Fury May 2012 #43

...said Mitt Romney to the homeless man CreekDog May 2012 #61

These are excellent ideas, and they need to be shouted from the rooftops. CaliforniaPeggy May 2012 #8

Ken Wright has some might fine ideas. Auntie Bush May 2012 #9

K&R varelse May 2012 #11

Is all this retroactive? For instance the survivor benefits. n/t vaberella May 2012 #12

If people advocating that are loud and visible during the process of negotiating the details-- eridani May 2012 #17

K&R....n/t unkachuck May 2012 #13

Eliminating the cap creates the first 16k monthly benefits check FogerRox May 2012 #18

Nope. There is a cap on benefits now eridani May 2012 #22

There is no benefit cap, that max of you cite is based on payments FogerRox May 2012 #23

There most assuredly is a benefit cap eridani May 2012 #25

And you know what, I'd be willing to raise the benefit cap Lydia Leftcoast May 2012 #26

There's no need. Mariana May 2012 #29

just by raising the cap from 106,800 to 110k this year FogerRox May 2012 #32

"This figure is based on earnings" from the link you provided. FogerRox May 2012 #31

The cap on earnings leads to a de facto cap on benefits eridani May 2012 #33

The cap on earnings leads to a de facto max benefit FogerRox May 2012 #38

That would certainly be a good first step n/t eridani May 2012 #49

I should say a 5k increase for those who get the max benefit, FogerRox May 2012 #56

So write the legislation to include a maximum monthly benefit. Mariana May 2012 #28

If we cap benefits, we introduce a means test, administratively making SS welfare FogerRox May 2012 #40

It's only welfare if you refuse any payouts to those at the top eridani May 2012 #46

Raising survivor benefits has to be balanced out by cutting elsewhere. lumberjack_jeff May 2012 #30

Not if you Scrap the Cap n/t eridani May 2012 #34

Absolutely untrue FogerRox May 2012 #39

Nothing you said negated anything I said. lumberjack_jeff May 2012 #44

Since benefits are computed by an earnings formula (AIME) FogerRox May 2012 #45

the max benefit is immaterial to this topic. lumberjack_jeff May 2012 #47

You don't have to cut if you increase or scrap the cap eridani May 2012 #48

Why not give that money to retirees? lumberjack_jeff May 2012 #51

You mean raising kids and taking care of sick elders is not work? eridani May 2012 #52

It's not employment, no. lumberjack_jeff May 2012 #53

That is utterly trivial compared to the actual work of raising kids eridani May 2012 #54

You're confused. lumberjack_jeff May 2012 #55

$265/month is not adequate, and puts you into the disposable human garbage category eridani May 2012 #57

It is certainly not enough for the work jwirr did. lumberjack_jeff May 2012 #58

Look--most women who take time out for kids are not Ann Romney eridani May 2012 #59

Women who worked have their own SS earnings history. lumberjack_jeff May 2012 #60

What I mean is that caring for kids and managing households is WORK eridani May 2012 #65

it's always a zero sum game for you Jeff CreekDog May 2012 #62

Inventing money isn't a very rational way to think. lumberjack_jeff May 2012 #63

inventing money is what capitalism is all about CreekDog May 2012 #64

These very good ideas will NOT be broadcast. So we must annabanana May 2012 #37

Good provision. Especially the care providers issue. I took care of my daughter for 45 years saving jwirr May 2012 #42

Excellent--all good ideas librechik May 2012 #50