It used to be standard that if you were collecting a pension, the amount you received was set at a specific figure at the point when you retired and began collecting it. Not a bad idea at the outset. But if you were collecting the same amount twenty years later, inflation might have reduced the value of that amount to less than you can live on.
Employed people didn’t have this issue because wages and salaries were generally adjusted upwards periodically to reflect the rising cost of living. So it was the elderly, who were essentially being forced to live off a “salary” that had been set decades earlier, who were said to be suffering from having to live on a “fixed income”.
To address this problem, many pensions now have cost-of-living adjustments built into them.
One of my pet-peeves is when people say they’re on a “fixed income”. Aren’t most people on a fixed income, other than those working for commission? …/QUOTE]
No, if you are employed you can change jobs, get a promotion or a raise.
Altho technically yes, a millionaire could be on a “fixed income” it really means someone on retirement and/or Socsec or perhaps Disability. Yes, sometimes those get a CoL but never a real increase.
In a normal year, which includes 2017 & 2019, we earn less than $60,000 combined. However, in 2018, I inherited money from my mother that put us well, well over $99,000. That’s where a lot of what’s in the bank is from, although we do manage to save, and living in a cheap part of the country helps.
If the inheritance counts as “income,” then 2018 will count against us getting the money. However, if they really are going to look at BOTH years, we should be OK. Or if they are going to look at earned income, and not inherited income, we should also be OK.
I’d like to ask someone these questions, but I don’t know who.
Particularly during those years in the 70s, 80s when inflation was hitting double figures.
We have been getting a similar whine here in Aus about unemployment benefits. Unemployment benefits are very small, and the program is depressing and de-humanizing. I get that: I’ve been on benefits. But there’s a political meme that benefits “haven’t gone up in 20 years” which is just … political. (Benefits have been indexed. And rent-relief is proportional). No: “wage increases” are what people who aren’t on indexed benefits get. And no: our unemployment benefits have always been very small, depressing and dehumanizing, and you shouldn’t need to make up reasons for improving and increasing our program.
I think you can look at your 2018 taxes for your AGI (the last line on the first page) - I presume (based on nothing) that that is the value that determines your check. I don’t believe that an inheritance feeds down to that line.