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.
Note: They are listed by the City of Phoenix as "affordable". That means simply they fall into certain economic criteria guidelines. Most people, given the choice, would NOT choose to live in the area where these units are located
Yes, they are for seniors with LOW income. If they were rich they would not qualify. Read up on Low Income Tax credit senior apartments. These are nice places that to someone with higher income the cost would be much higher.
I suspect you reacted to the title without actually investigating the link or units offered. I have been in some in California, they are nice.
You are confusing me, should we provide all seniors with high end living? Should we take away their choice and give them mansions? I don't get you point.
Yes, they are for seniors with LOW income. If they were rich they would not qualify. Read up on Low Income Tax credit senior apartments. These are nice places that to someone with higher income the cost would be much higher.
I suspect you reacted to the title without actually investigating the link or units offered. I have been in some in California, they are nice.
You are confusing me, should we provide all seniors with high end living? Should we take away their choice and give them mansions? I don't get you point.
First, I know the units the COP offers.
Second - this discussion started when JRUR88 claimed that seniors could / should be able to live quire comfortably on less than $1500 a month income - because he lives bares bones - all should live as he does is his claim.
Second - this discussion started when JRUR88 claimed that seniors could / should be able to live quire comfortably on less than $1500 a month income - because he lives bares bones - all should live as he does is his claim.
My contention is not that at all. My contention is that the strapped SS system ought not to be responsible for maintaining a $30K a year lifestyle for single retirees ($60K for couples). Not when there are hard working people who go all their lives without ever making that much, even while raising a family.
I'm not saying people SHOULD live bare bones, I'm saying they CAN, and it is not up to Social Security to foot the bill for those who refuse to.
As for COP units, I'm not familiar with California, but a retiree whose SS is less than about $1,000 a month qualifies for low-income assistance, and is eligible for the reduced rent. Not everyone can move into those buildings and rent at that rate. I knew people in Florida whose income was so low, their calculated adjusted rent was negative, and the housing complex gave them a small check the first of every month.
Second - this discussion started when JRUR88 claimed that seniors could / should be able to live quire comfortably on less than $1500 a month income - because he lives bares bones - all should live as he does is his claim.
Actually those are PRIVATE (evil, I know) apartments. The developer in exchange for low rent to people who fall within the guidelines receives a tax credit. These are quality apartments and must fall within certain guidelines. COP is probably Section 8 (No-income housing).
I think his point is, if someone did not save and wants to solely live on SS, they should not be given $4k a month. The goal of entitlements was not to provide a middle class lifestyle, it was to keep you out of the streets.
Actually those are PRIVATE (evil, I know) apartments. The developer in exchange for low rent to people who fall within the guidelines receives a tax credit. These are quality apartments and must fall within certain guidelines. COP is probably Section 8 (No-income housing).
I think his point is, if someone did not save and wants to solely live on SS, they should not be given $4k a month. The goal of entitlements was not to provide a middle class lifestyle, it was to keep you out of the streets.
First, Section 8 does not mean no income.
Next, no SS reciepent gets 4K per month
Then, I'm not concerned - I can NEVER get social security - I'm entirely on my own.
Those of you who are concerned about the future liquidity of SS can consider the effect of placing a $1500 cap instead of a $2400 cap on SS monthly benefits. If you want to keep on giving $2400 a month to people who have already earned the lifetime income to be well off, don't whine about SS being busted by the poor people it was designed to benefit. You can gleefully keep on whining about a sensible liberal plan that is being busted by the greed of the rich.
Lower the cap, or live with the excess outlay. Your call.
A poor guy who lives to 80, getting $1000 a month, takes out 180K. A rich guy who lives to 90, getting $2400 a month takes out 750K. You figure it out. Which one is busting the system, and stealing your hard-earned money?
Then, I'm not concerned - I can NEVER get social security - I'm entirely on my own.
Point being Section 8 is not income based like tax credit housing, it is a government run subsidy program, where Credits are private.
No one recipient but many couples do, I know several. A 65 year old today can easily receive $25k more a year and if the spouse received her credits she would receive over $25k a year also.
The problem with the arguments is that Social Security benefits are derived from payments into the system. The people receiving maximum benefits paid much more into the system. On the other hand, many of the poor did not actually pay into the system if they were receiving refundable tax credits while they were working.
The problem with the arguments is that Social Security benefits are derived from payments into the system. The people receiving maximum benefits paid much more into the system. On the other hand, many of the poor did not actually pay into the system if they were receiving refundable tax credits while they were working.
Once again, they are not derived from what we pay in. They are paid by current workers based on a formula, THERE IS NO ACCOUNT IN YOUR NAME, sorry.
The more that is paid out, the sooner the fund is exhausted. Pay out less, it will last longer. Cap it lower.
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.
