Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's great that you are doing OK and have learned to cut back enough not to need a COLA, but why would you hope there is no COLA? Receiving a COLA is not abusing the system, it just helps seniors keep up with cost increases, somewhat. Sure there are some who are abusing the system, and always will be, but on the other hand there are numerous folks out there who are not doing as well, simply due to residing in high cost areas, or higher medical bills due to poor health, etc.
Rent, food, MEDICARE, etc. will continue to increase, and eventually you'll need and want a COLA.
So instead of wishing for no COLA, just take the COLA and donate it to a local food bank to help folks who are really in need.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhxBarb
I agree. Every little bit helps to be able to enjoy life a little more in our senior years !
Yes. Social Security would be almost unthinkable without COLA's. Maybe a lot of people would never miss their COLA's for a year or two or three, especially in times of relatively low inflation such as we've had for the past several years, but over time it would be absurd to allow the real purchasing power of people's SS benefits to decline substantially. Given enough time, the amount which was sufficient to live on, albeit frugally, wouldn't even be enough to prevent people from becoming homeless.
I'm grateful my country helps me because I cannot work. Honestly, I hope there is no COLA. Here is a reverse case of the itching you expect.
If I get X amount (say x=20) in COLA. My rent goes up $6-10, my SNAP goes down about $10-12. My Medication co-pay might go up slightly, but over the years I pay 90% less on the medications that keep me as functional as possible (Just because I have no job does not mean I do not work, or have goals. I'm not a couch potato). So I do not complain about paying for medication, and thank the USA for making it better for me.
I don't write this to prove myself, or justify my existence. I paid into the system, and I have no guilt. I was great at my profession. I write this to inform you how it works in the personal life of a person who does not abuse the system. I would love more (like all americans), but I don't expect it.
Because of my disability, sometimes my grammar is not what I'd like it to be. I have a hard time conveying my thoughts. In my head I am very clear (sometime too much). Sometimes I feel hated for drawing my insurance. I understand many people work, and have less security than I do. I would gladly exchange places with you. You can have the meds, I can have sanity, and purpose. Please don't come down on me, I have done nothing wrong.
Let me say again I am grateful. I live an acceptable life. I am educated, and I love to educate myself still. I pay my bills on time, and I have a 710 credit record. I'm creative in every area of my life with money, some people don't know I exist on $1000 a month.
I think what the person is saying is that he is subsidized and the way it works is that if his income increases so does his rent because his rent is based on his income. They make him pay more. His foodstamp amount would go down, it's also based on income. He is on disability, not retirement. If you are being subsidized you cannot get ahead because if you get more, they raise your rent to make up for it. If you tried to earn a little bit of money, they'd raise your rent. So he's worse off.
But for those of us who are retired, we like the increase because it will help offset other expenses that have gone up. I just got my list of increases from my Advantage plan so I'm hoping for an increase in COLA.
I think what the person is saying is that he is subsidized and the way it works is that if his income increases so does his rent because his rent is based on his income.
You might want to check HUD changes effective June 2012. What I'm told is that there must be a "substantial" change in an HUD tenant's income in order to justify increasing or decreasing HUD rents.
I do not know what constitutes a "substantial" change, only that the 2013 1.7% COLA increase did not alter HUD rents, at least not in the Cincinnati MSA. I cannot speak for any of the other 1,538 MSAs operating as separate functioning economies in the United States.
The CPI-W was to be published on October 16, however I think we all realize there will be a delay of a few days (or weeks).
Recalculate rent when resident income decreases
Recalculate rent when resident income increases by $200 or more per month
Recalculate rent every 90 days when resident claims minimum rent hardship exemption
FACT SHEET For HUD ASSISTED RESIDENTS Doc-7787
Okay, so, we have "substantial" defined.
More or less all things being equal on average $200 equates to about 1% of maximum income for HUD eligibility.
The minimum income requirements for HUD eligibility vary for each of the 1,539 separately functioning economies in the US. HUD publishes the the minimum amount for each of the 1,539 separately functioning economies in MSWord and MSExcel (for those who are interested).
I just knew someone would post that propaganda article.
Preliminary figures suggest a benefit increase of roughly 1.5 percent, which would be among the smallest since automatic increases were adopted in 1975, according to an analysis by The Associated Press.
For 2009 and 2010 the COLA increase was exactly ZERO.
According to The Associated Press, 1.5% is less than ZERO.
I'm guessing they're pining for 1980 and 1981 when the COLA increases were 14.3% and 11.2% respectively.
Uh, but then of course Real Inflation was running 10% to 15% annually, so it really wasn't an increase at all, and naturally the lag time -- catching up with Real Inflation -- results in people loosing their shirts.
Another thing the article cleverly refused to address is the 1,539 separately functioning economies in the US.
When the government says the "Poverty Level" is $11,490 for one person, that is the average rate of CONUS (the 48 States in the continental US....Alaska and Hawaii are excluded).
The trueaccuratereal Poverty Level depends on which one of the 1,539 separately functioning economies in which one resides.
$6,038.85 per year in Cincinnati $21,861.80 per year in San Fransisco
What the government does is average all of the true Poverty Levels to come up with the average Poverty Level. That hides and distorts things like this...
$1,100 in monthly Social Security benefits in reality equals...
$2092.95 per month in Cincinnati $761.07. per month in San Fransisco
And just think....you're about to give a 1.5% COLA increase to people living in Cincinnati and the hundreds of other economies in the US where the true Poverty is even lower than the $6,038.85 per year in Cincinnati.
How low does the true Poverty Level really get?
In some of the 1,539 separately functioning economies in the US if you applied for HUD Section 8 Housing, and your annual income is $9,500.....you do not qualify, because you make way too much money.
Yet in some of the 1,539 separately functioning economies in the US, you can be single, have an annual income of $53,900 and move into your tax-payer funded HUD Housing tomorrow.
Federal programs perpetuate those types of disparities, which is why the federal government should abandon them.
If the States ran their own Social Security programs, disparities like this...
$2092.95 per month in Cincinnati $761.07. per month in San Fransisco
...would not exist. The cost-savings realized by tax-payers would be tremendous, while simultaneously benefiting those who use the programs. It's win-win for everyone.
Waiting for the CPI data...
I just knew someone would post that propaganda article.
Preliminary figures suggest a benefit increase of roughly 1.5 percent, which would be among the smallest since automatic increases were adopted in 1975, according to an analysis by The Associated Press.
For 2009 and 2010 the COLA increase was exactly ZERO.
According to The Associated Press, 1.5% is less than ZERO...
Funny...that's exactly what hubby and I were discussing last night. Looks like "someone" (who shall remain nameless, article author) didn't do so well in basic math.
RVcook
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
