Jump to content

Menu

Money / budget expressions that bother me


poppy
 Share

Recommended Posts

"They are on a fixed income".

 

So is everyone! Well, almost everyone.  Being on a variable income is usually worse.  And having NO income is obviously worse.

 

"They don't have a lot of extra money to spend".

 

??????

This just means they are in the same boat as the vast majority of Americans. Close to half of people with six figure incomes have less than $1000 saved.....

If the top, what, 20% doesn't have "a lot of extra money", who does?

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I hear 'fixed income' it sounds to me like people who don't have the option of taking on more work/moving up in a career.  So people living on disability benefits, or who are old/frail and living on retirement income.  

 

I understand it typically means social security income or SSI, but, why not just say that? How many people can snap a finger and move up the career ladder?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think euphemisms are more likely to be used with certain subjects and money is one of them.

 

Having or lacking money, and feeling the constant comparison to people around us that seems to be in the air of the culture we live in makes shame or tact a part of how we talk about money.

 

I know I struggle with this because we are a "low income" family. And I sometimes say we're poor which causes some people to launch into a lecture about thinking about people in 3rd world countries (100% of the time delivered by someone who has/ makes significantly more money).

 

I guess there's a lot of cultural baggage attached to some ways we talk about things.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, that is also how I understand fixed income - people who really have little control.  Also, they may well not have increases in line with inflation, and they may be paid in a different way than most.

 

That being said, increasingly many people are in jobs that don't allow for much wiggle-room or decision making either.

 

The extra money thing is funny.  It's true that many don't have savings, but the same people may well spend extra anyway.  We have a bad culture of money, I think.  Credit stands in for saving for many.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A "fixed income" means an income that will never increase. In 2 years, they will have the same income; in 20 years, they will have the same income. It also implies an income that hasn't increased at all since it was established -- it was an appropriate amount, say, 15 years ago, but it is no longer going as far as it used to.

 

I don't know about America, but in my spheres it takes a 'bad year' (either for the employer or the employee) for people not to get (at least) a raise based on inflation at least every second or third year. If people are in jobs where they truly expect no wage adjustment, ever, no matter how many decades they work -- those people are on a "fixed income".

 

A fixed income essentially means you get "poorer" by a tiny fraction every yer. The cost of living increases, so your income buys a bit less: every year, forever.

 

So, I think it's a meaningful term that discribes something specific. We need to be concerned about fixed incomes. (While not being unconcerned about plenty of other financial struggles -- they are all real, they just have different names.)

  • Like 17
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand it typically means social security income or SSI, but, why not just say that? How many people can snap a finger and move up the career ladder?

 

People who are working age can, theoretically, increase earnings by doing things like getting another job, changing careers, training, and so on.  Working an extra shift or odd jobs are probably the most basic form of this.

 

Someone on a non-indexed pension may well be too old/infirm to do anything like that, and people on some types of social security aren't allowed to.

 

I just think its a general term for a situation that can occur in different circumstances.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand it typically means social security income or SSI, but, why not just say that? How many people can snap a finger and move up the career ladder?

 

I don't know - it depends on so many things: location, education, economy.  I'm certainly hoping to move up over the next ten years.  

 

I moved through two jobs and did extra training after I stopped home educating, in order to prepare myself for exactly the kind of job I have now.  I now work for a large employer with periodic openings at higher grades, so I'm doing the best job I can to make myself attractive for more lucrative positions.  I'll start looking around when I've been in this job for around three years.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, everyone is not on a fixed income. If you are an able bodied person you have the potential to increase your earnings.  My husbands disability benefits are never going to change.  They are fixed for all of eternity.  Our bills will continue to increase.  His disability will not.  We are living on a fixed income.

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"They are on a fixed income" - many in a sales job in a company are on basic + commission. My former engineering jobs and my buddy's engineering jobs are basic + performance bonus. The only fixed income jobs in my former employment were the HR people, secretaries, accountants and IT support staff. So more than 2/3 were having bonuses tie to revenue they help bring in.

 

"They don't have a lot of extra money to spend" - if someone is not asking for donations for the "they", it is just a normal comment and does not need a response.

 

Like we are going for a short Canada vacation and looking at budget options. A friend asking her relatives in Toronto for recommendations on my behalf and making that remark just means don't give me recommendations of hotels and restaurants that cost $$$$ and up because we are looking for nice $$/$$$ options.

 

ETA:

My "fixed income" does not take into account any annual cost of living adjustments which may or may not happen. So if my boss say I am getting $52k annual before tax, then that is what I am getting with no overtime pay or bonus or vested stocks. Mine was variable so I knew the minimum I would get in gross annual pay but I could earn extra.

Edited by Arcadia
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A "fixed income" means an income that will never increase. In 2 years, they will have the same income; in 20 years, they will have the same income. It also implies an income that hasn't increased at all since it was established -- it was an appropriate amount, say, 15 years ago, but it is no longer going as far as it used to.

 

I don't know about America, but in my spheres it takes a 'bad year' (either for the employer or the employee) for people not to get (at least) a raise based on inflation at least every second or third year. If people are in jobs where they truly expect no wage adjustment, ever, no matter how many decades they work -- those people are on a "fixed income".

 

A fixed income essentially means you get "poorer" by a tiny fraction every yer. The cost of living increases, so your income buys a bit less: every year, forever.

 

So, I think it's a meaningful term that discribes something specific. We need to be concerned about fixed incomes. (While not being unconcerned about plenty of other financial struggles -- they are all real, they just have different names.)

 

Social security income does have an annual cost of living adjustment typically- https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/colaseries.html

Similarly, disability payments are adjusted for inflation- https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/SSIamts.html

 

Edited by poppy
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"They are on a fixed income" - many in a sales job in a company are on basic + commission. My former engineering jobs and my buddy's engineering jobs are basic + performance bonus. The only fixed income jobs in my former employment were the HR people, secretaries, accountants and IT support staff. So more than 2/3 were having bonuses tie to revenue they help bring in.

 

"They don't have a lot of extra money to spend" - if someone is not asking for donations for the "they", it is just a normal comment and does not need a response.

 

Like we are going for a short Canada vacation and looking at budget options. A friend asking her relatives in Toronto and making that remark just means don't give me recommendations of hotels and restaurants that cost $$$$ and up because we are looking for nice $$/$$$ options.

 

Even the people without commisions and bonuses might not be considered fixed income if they get raises at least for COL.  I would be suprised if that doesn't happen from time to time.  Any place I have ever worked has to increase wages now and again or no one could afford to work for them.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Social security income does have an annual cost of living adjustment typically- https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/colaseries.html

Similarly, disability payments are adjusted for inflation- https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/SSIamts.html

I wouldn't think those would be called "fixed incomes" in that case, unless the application of the expression has been broadened. They aren't nearly as much of a concern as actual fixed incomes.

 

The implementation of the increases represents a modification to a fixed income system that compensates for its most obvious flaw, but it might still be thought of (linguistically) as some kind of 'modified fixed income system'. It might imply that such increases are currently expected but it's not guaranteed to always work out that way?

 

There are definitely more forms of "fixed income" than government pensions.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even the people without commisions and bonuses might not be considered fixed income if they get raises at least for COL. I would be suprised if that doesn't happen from time to time. Any place I have ever worked has to increase wages now and again or no one could afford to work for them.

There are COLA (cost of living adjustments) but my former company froze that 4 years before I resigned. My hubby's three employers since 2005 has froze COLA before the recession and not restart COLA.

 

I don't know if there is an official definition of fixed income. I am thinking more of a fixed income job where your annual package is fixed and there is no overtime pay or bonus to expect. So you have to supplement your income with other income source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People who are working age can, theoretically, increase earnings by doing things like getting another job, changing careers, training, and so on.  Working an extra shift or odd jobs are probably the most basic form of this.

 

Someone on a non-indexed pension may well be too old/infirm to do anything like that, and people on some types of social security aren't allowed to.

 

I just think its a general term for a situation that can occur in different circumstances.

 

Many people who "could" add to their income also say they are on a "fixed income."  Some people who *do* add to their income say they're on a "fixed income."

 

It implies that people on so-called "fixed incomes" assume everyone else is getting constant raises just for breathing in and out.  In reality, the average individual income of a working person buys a lot less than it used to.  If I had to guess, I'd say the buying power of SS income has performed better than that of full-time workers in recent decades.

Edited by SKL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "don't have a lot of money" sort of goes back to the idea that everyone (in our culture anyway) seems to feel less wealthy than they are.  I mean I had a boss who was a millionaire, and his wife was making her own millions.  He used to talk about how unfair it was that he had to pay taxes when all those richer people should pay more instead.  Really?  I guess as long as there is anyone richer than you, you are on the poor side.

 

"We don't have a lot of extra money" also seems to come up when people are guilting folks into spending on things they don't want, e.g., fundraisers.

 

I prefer to say "I choose to do other things with my money" vs. "we can't afford it."  Well, there are things I can't afford, but even if I could, I probably wouldn't do most of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many people who "could" add to their income also say they are on a "fixed income."  Some people who *do* add to their income say they're on a "fixed income."

 

It implies that people on so-called "fixed incomes" assume everyone else is getting constant raises just for breathing in and out.  In reality, the average individual income of a working person buys a lot less than it used to.  If I had to guess, I'd say the buying power of SS income has performed better than that of full-time workers in recent decades.

 

Yes, like my in-laws. They are retired teachers living on state pensions who like to whine about their "fixed incomes." They do get COLAs. They also both retired in their early 50's and could easily continue to work if they so desired. They don't.

 

Perhaps "steady" or "reliable" would be a better term. Speaking as a one-income family that has survived for many years on a job that pays 100% on commission, I'll take a steady income, however meager, over one that wildly fluctuates any day. It's a budgeting nightmare. Even now that dh has a solid base income (in addition to commissions), it can be tricky.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other thing is that a "fixed income" is not necessarily a small income.  It may include comfortable pension annuities.

 

That said, I think it's generally used in the sense of "money issues make me nervous, because my ability to adjust to them is limited."  I am not sure this is really an income issue, though, so much as an age-related anxiety issue.  It seems young people view themselves as more adaptable, on average.

Edited by SKL
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many people who "could" add to their income also say they are on a "fixed income."  Some people who *do* add to their income say they're on a "fixed income."

 

It implies that people on so-called "fixed incomes" assume everyone else is getting constant raises just for breathing in and out.  In reality, the average individual income of a working person buys a lot less than it used to.  If I had to guess, I'd say the buying power of SS income has performed better than that of full-time workers in recent decades.

 

Well, yes, some people use it in a way that really reflects their own perception about their situation which may be incorrect or self-serving.  And practically speaking, they might be correct sometimes too.  Someone may theoretically be able to get a better paying job or take overtime shifts, but in reality that is just impossible. 

 

So effectively, they have a budget that can't be increased in any achievable way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"They are on a fixed income".

 

So is everyone! Well, almost everyone.  Being on a variable income is usually worse.  And having NO income is obviously worse.

 

 

Someone who is employed can always try to find a better-paying job. An elderly person living off of savings and Social Security can't easily bring in more income.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are COLA (cost of living adjustments) but my former company froze that 4 years before I resigned. My hubby's three employers since 2005 has froze COLA before the recession and not restart COLA.

 

I don't know if there is an official definition of fixed income. I am thinking more of a fixed income job where your annual package is fixed and there is no overtime pay or bonus to expect. So you have to supplement your income with other income source.

 

You might be right, I do tend to associate is especially with no COL increases regularly.  And that is part of the reason frozen wages are considered to be such a serious thing for people who are still working - if inflation carries on, they are getting paid less for the same work which makes no sense.

 

 

OK - so having looked it up, it does seem like there is a sort of definition, it seems especially to relate to a set income through investments.

Edited by Bluegoat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone who is employed can always try to find a better-paying job. An elderly person living off of savings and Social Security can't easily bring in more income.

I think this is the root of why the expression bugs me so much . With today's lack of income mobility and wages being fairly stagnant, there are very few people who can 'easily' bring in more income.

 

 

 

 

Plus my parents both have fairly sizable pensions that will last until they die - something very few people under age 50 will enjoy thanks to the 'freedom' we all got with 401ks.

Edited by poppy
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"They are on a fixed income".

 

So is everyone! Well, almost everyone. Being on a variable income is usually worse. And having NO income is obviously worse.

 

"They don't have a lot of extra money to spend".

 

??????

This just means they are in the same boat as the vast majority of Americans. Close to half of people with six figure incomes have less than $1000 saved.....

If the top, what, 20% doesn't have "a lot of extra money", who does?

I understand "fixed income" to mean no potential even for raises, cost of living increases, etc. and that is the only income they are able to obtain. Even someone in a normal, average Joe kind of job sometimes (granted, not much lately....) has potential of at least cost of living increases each year.

 

Conversely, someone on only disability or social security, essentially loses a bit of buying power each year due to inflation. Again, granted, this applies to a large sector these days with the economy as it is, but people employed do have the potential, even if not the reality every year, for cost of living or even merit raises.

 

As far as "not a lot of extra to spend" and equating that to what percent of six-figure folks have savings, many people have spending money in their budget above and beyond meeting their basic bills, even if they aren't saving it. I wouldn't consider their ability/commitment to saving as a true indicator of how much spending money they have.

 

To me, spending money means more, Can I stop at the bookstore and buy a few books without worrying if I will have money left for the electric bill? Can I pay for that unexpected doctor visit, without having to eat beans and rice or use the credit card? Can we do fun things, like movies once a month, or a museum membership, or eat out for birthdays, etc. In other words, after the bills (even if I don't prioritize the savings account as a "bill"), is there money to do extra things?

 

I have been where none of the above was true, where buying a paperback book once/month was a major treat, where we never ate out, we watched movies at home instead of the theater (and movies we owned, because even renting was a treat), where anything unexpected would have had to go on the credit card, etc. That is "not having extra spending money."

 

If I can do those things, even if I am not saving, then I do have extra spending money. So, when I hear someone doesn't have a lot of extra, I picture someone who would be burdened by an invite to meet me for coffee, or lunch, unless I made it clear it was my treat.

 

The lack of savings just means that if some thing unexpected comes up, they have to cut some of the extras, versus someone with no extra who would have to sacrifice needs, or use credit. To me, that is a significant difference. Having lived on both sides of it, I would absolutely say it is a lot more comfortable having extra spending money vs. not. I can absolutely feel, and appreciate, the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm wondering where some of the prior posters live, where cost of living increases are expected in employment but unavailable in retirement.  It's really the opposite in the USA.  Only a minority of jobs have a cost of living increase - usually people get raises based on merit, or they have to job hop to make more money.  Meanwhile I don't think there is any US government-funded (long term) entitlement income that is not adjusted for cost of living every year.  Even people on private pensions (which may be fixed) usually also receive social security with COLA.

Edited by SKL
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Someone may theoretically be able to get a better paying job or take overtime shifts, but in reality that is just impossible.

 

Most of the people I hear complaining about finding it "impossible" to get a better job are simply unwilling to take the steps necessary to do so. They don't want to go back to school/vocational training. I sympathize with it being hard to go back when you're middle-aged and have family responsibilities. But with so many legitimate online programs now, it's a LOT easier than it was in the past when to get a degree meant having to take B&M classes that were primarily offered in the late morning or early afternoon M-Th.

 

Nobody's going to hand you a better job on a silver platter just because you think you deserve one. You need to improve your marketability and that's going to take effort on your part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is the root of why the expression bugs me so much . With today's lack of income mobility and wages being fairly stagnant, there are very few people who can 'easily' bring in more income.

 

Wages may be stagnant within a particular job, but what's stopping the person from improving his/her skillset and qualifying for a better-paying job? Instead of bemoaning the lack of wage growth in the current job, the person needs to figure out what he/she needs to do to land a more lucrative position.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm wondering where some of the prior posters live, where cost of living increases are expected in employment but unavailable in retirement.  It's really the opposite in the USA.  Only a minority of jobs have a cost of living increase - usually people get raises based on merit, or they have to job hop to make more money.  Meanwhile I don't think there is any US government-funded (long term) entitlement income that is not adjusted for cost of living every year.

 

The UK has COL increases on government benefits.  For me, 'fixed income' means the inability to receive more - a COL increase essentially means that your spending power remains the same.

 

FWIW, my employer has a fixed pay scale: I get an annual increase at this grade for six years, then it tops out.  At that point, I need to change jobs in order to improve my income.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where I live, I see "hiring" signs all over the place.  If a person's health allows movement, there is a possibility of supplementing income.

 

Don't get me wrong - I have nothing against deciding to retire and relax before you can't move any more.  I think that's great.  I can't wait to be able to make that choice, and I hope I can still enjoy life after that.

 

But the reality is that many retired people actually have more flexibility than younger people when it comes to supplementing their income.  Like single moms - they can work the shift when the kids are in school / daycare, but beyond that, there are significant limits.  Can't just leave your young kids home for a few hours while you go serve lattes.  Also, after age 65, employer-provided health insurance is not an issue.

Edited by SKL
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

FWIW, my employer has a fixed pay scale: I get an annual increase at this grade for six years, then it tops out.  At that point, I need to change jobs in order to improve my income.

 

That is a very different situation than being elderly or disabled and unable to bring in additional income. You have the potential to improve your income by finding a better-paying job. It may not be simple, but it is certainly possible. Plenty of people do it every day.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is the root of why the expression bugs me so much . With today's lack of income mobility and wages being fairly stagnant, there are very few people who can 'easily' bring in more income.

 

Plus my parents both have fairly sizable pensions that will last until they die - something very few people under age 50 will enjoy thanks to the 'freedom' we all got with 401ks.

No joke. I know people on "fixed income" of various sorts who make 1/2 my dh's annual income. And they can and often do have other avenues of revenue if they want to access it.

 

And he, like many others, cannot "just" go get another job, much less "easily" get a better paying one.

 

And many people can't leave their job bc of the medical coverage too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a very different situation than being elderly or disabled and unable to bring in additional income. You have the potential to improve your income by finding a better-paying job. It may not be simple, but it is certainly possible. Plenty of people do it every day.

 

Yes, I know. I was responding to SKL's query about the contrast between government income and private income in previous posts.  I'm well aware that I can attempt to earn more at this stage of my life and intend to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wages may be stagnant within a particular job, but what's stopping the person from improving his/her skillset and qualifying for a better-paying job? Instead of bemoaning the lack of wage growth in the current job, the person needs to figure out what he/she needs to do to land a more lucrative position.

 

What's to stop any 65 year old retiree from doing the exact same?? Any able bodied retired person is just as capable as someone working 40+ hours to improve his or her income.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited by poppy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wages may be stagnant within a particular job, but what's stopping the person from improving his/her skillset and qualifying for a better-paying job? Instead of bemoaning the lack of wage growth in the current job, the person needs to figure out what he/she needs to do to land a more lucrative position.

 

Because what makes it lucrative is usually that it costs to get it to begin with.

 

For example, my dh could in theory go back to school to learn a new trade or get a degree. Sure he could. For thousands in debt. And it presumes the current job is stable enough to allow him to hold it AND another job/education goal. Many are not. And the mortgage doesnt stop needing paid just because he is trying to better his lot in life.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's to stop any 65 year old retiree from doing the exact same??

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Ah yes.  Two men in my family were laid off in their mid-fifties.  Both have managed to find work/go freelance but at half the salary or less.  People don't seem to want to hire 'old' people on good wages.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the people I hear complaining about finding it "impossible" to get a better job are simply unwilling to take the steps necessary to do so. They don't want to go back to school/vocational training. I sympathize with it being hard to go back when you're middle-aged and have family responsibilities. But with so many legitimate online programs now, it's a LOT easier than it was in the past when to get a degree meant having to take B&M classes that were primarily offered in the late morning or early afternoon M-Th.

 

Nobody's going to hand you a better job on a silver platter just because you think you deserve one. You need to improve your marketability and that's going to take effort on your part.

 

You know, sometimes retraining is a good idea, but overall I really hate this line of thinking.

 

If there are a lot of people in jobs that are inadaquate, that is not a problem of the individual, it is an economic problem.  If a kind of work really needs to be done, it needs to pay enough to support a worker.  Otherwise we are all just as guilty as if we were underpaying personal servants.  This has nothing to do with marketability, it's basic fairness.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm wondering where some of the prior posters live, where cost of living increases are expected in employment but unavailable in retirement.  It's really the opposite in the USA.  Only a minority of jobs have a cost of living increase - usually people get raises based on merit, or they have to job hop to make more money.  Meanwhile I don't think there is any US government-funded (long term) entitlement income that is not adjusted for cost of living every year.  Even people on private pensions (which may be fixed) usually also receive social security with COLA.

 

If it's worked into the system that people get a COL increase in other ways, I think it comes down to the same thing.  Many jobs give raises for seniority, or over time the minimum wage goes up, or people naturally move to higher level positions.

 

But I really can't think of any scenario where a person who is, say, a machinist, even in the very same job, should expect to be paid the same amount today as 15 years ago.  If that is happening, it's a wage freeze and considered a bad thing.

 

That is much different than someone living off an investment income that doesn't and really can't change.  That will always become smaller over time.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is much different than someone living off an investment income that doesn't and really can't change.  That will always become smaller over time.

 

But again - all US retirees over a certain age are entitled to social security (or alternative program) with annual cost of living adjustments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah yes. Two men in my family were laid off in their mid-fifties. Both have managed to find work/go freelance but at half the salary or less. People don't seem to want to hire 'old' people on good wages.

Oh of course it's not always easy to get a better / new job ... but younger workers in many categories have similar challenges.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two men in my family were laid off in their mid-fifties. Both have managed to find work/go freelance but at half the salary or less. People don't seem to want to hire 'old' people on good wages.

The problem is that not every job is value added by experience. For example, an aunt by marriage is a bank teller and has max out her payscale. If the bank she worked for were to be bought over and downsized, there is no incentive to keep her over another bank teller with a year's experience and earning much less.

 

20 years ago where I worked, an engineer with 1 to 2 years experience cost $33k annual while an engineer that max out on the same rank (pay scale) cost $84.5k annual. Very rare there was a tender that ask for engineers with 5 or more years of experience, most ask for 2 years of experience since the engineering manager would be overseeing. That is why we keep a relatively big emergency fund. While hubby's job need someone with experience, they don't need someone with his amount of experience.

 

ETA:

I am talking about private sector though where whatever revenue we can get justify the headcounts quarterly. So closing of financial accounts quarterly at 12 midnight is nail biting tension and the final quarterly reports are all generated by 1am. 31st March is the worst because the quarter and financial year were closed at 12 midnight so management people work through the night and come to office late on 1st April.

Edited by Arcadia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind the term "fixed income," but have rolled my eyes at its obvious incorrect use.

 

As far as responses, I'll just say, "That's not in my budget." Be it a true lack of funds, or a choice not to spend, people can interpret that however they wish. It's kind of along the lines of "no" is a complete sentence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is much different than someone living off an investment income that doesn't and really can't change.  That will always become smaller over time.

 

Wouldn't that depend on the investment income? If you take out a smaller percentage of your investments every year than you earn in interest etc, your investments will go up over time and so will the amount you'll be able to take out in income.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't that depend on the investment income? If you take out a smaller percentage of your investments every year than you earn in interest etc, your investments will go up over time and so will the amount you'll be able to take out in income.

 

I don't think that is always an option for people.  You know in Austen novels when they talk about having an annuity?

 

But my dad is an example - his Canada Pension will go up, but that isn't enough for more than poverty level anyway.  His private pension, though, from his work, is fixed, and there is nothing he can do about that.

Edited by Bluegoat
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fixed income doesn't equal social security. 

 

Yeah, I think that's what this thread is about - that "fixed income" is commonly used inaccurately by US people on social security and similar income streams.

 

In the USA there is no such thing as Fixed Income because everyone is entitled to COLA after a certain age.

 

Some retirees have *part* of their income stream fixed, but not all of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't something that bothers per say, but I am just trying to figure it out. 

 

People I come in contact now refer to themselves as a low income family.   What does that mean?  These are big families (meaning at least 3 kids).   Do they mean they are really low income and struggling? 

Or is it just because when you divide 60k by 7 people then that is a smaller a mount of money? 

 

It just confuses me.  These are people that still have their kids in lessons and activities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't know about America, but in my spheres it takes a 'bad year' (either for the employer or the employee) for people not to get (at least) a raise based on inflation at least every second or third year. If people are in jobs where they truly expect no wage adjustment, ever, no matter how many decades they work -- those people are on a "fixed income".

 

 

 

 

Before having children, I worked in healthcare.  It was normal for us to get 1-5% raises every year.

 

My dh works in business.  Unless he does a significantly better job and negotiates for it, he never sees a raise.  In the early years of the recession of 2008, every other quarter was a pay cut.  We lost 35% of his income that year.  It's now 8 years later, and he is *this* close to being back to 2007 income.  But at a much higher job title and responsibilties.  Most of those people that saw the cuts in 2008 will never again see that income.  There is no such thing as cost of living raises in his industry.  

 

Two extremes.  It's hard for us to relate sometimes.  He is convinced all business is like his, but I'm not so sure.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Social security income does have an annual cost of living adjustment typically- https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/colaseries.html

Similarly, disability payments are adjusted for inflation- https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/SSIamts.html

So it is still fixed, relative to their outflows. My dad's housing cost increases by a little more than his SS each year. He has, in practical terms less to live on than he had 5 years ago.

 

I'm not sure why it's worth the time to be bothered by common euphemisms people use to describe their financial situations.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't something that bothers per say, but I am just trying to figure it out. 

 

People I come in contact now refer to themselves as a low income family.   What does that mean?  These are big families (meaning at least 3 kids).   Do they mean they are really low income and struggling? 

Or is it just because when you divide 60k by 7 people then that is a smaller a mount of money? 

 

It just confuses me.  These are people that still have their kids in lessons and activities.

 

I think if you qualify for government assistance of some sort, you are considered low income by the society as a whole.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...