Who would be willing to give up 20% income to help others?

[TravelTime]

I am wondering who would be willing to give up 20% of their income or social security and pension income to help others who have lost their jobs due to the SIP/SAH orders. I know many people are willing to stay at home to reduce deaths. But who would be fine if the government decides it needs to reduce social security and pensions to pay for the relief programs? Would working adults be willing to take a 20% a pay cut to help save jobs for other people? By taking a pay cut, maybe we could prevent mass layoffs and recover more quickly.

 

[Shankilicious]

We donate around 20% of our income and we could survive giving another 10-15% if we stopped all our home projects and vacationing for the time being.
But I would NOT trust the state or federal government with that money. I'm in Illinois, the land of corrupt politicians and stolen pensions where they had to stop paying out lottery winners above $10k because they used the money elsewhere.....

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[Panina]

I would not give 20% back to the government to help people as I have no confidence that it would be used for those who really need it.

I prefer to give my donations to private organizations that help those in need.

 

[Wyominguy]

I would never trust the Government to do this. Why would anyone think that someone in DC would be better at deciding how to help others than any individual or church organization in the country.

Neil

 

[bluehende]

We routinely give 20% to charity. With more need now we have actually been using close to 60% of our income for charitable causes. However we are not the right comparison as our income is low as we live off assets. I have been a devotee to raising taxes to pay off the debt my generation has run up since Paul Tsongas in 1990. I was a delegate for him.

 

[HDiaz1]

I am wondering who would be willing to give up 20% of their income or social security and pension income to help others who have lost their jobs due to the SIP/SAH orders. I know many people are willing to stay at home to reduce deaths. But who would be fine if the government decides it needs to reduce social security and pensions to pay for the relief programs? Would working adults be willing to take a 20% a pay cut to help save jobs for other people? By taking a pay cut, maybe we could prevent mass layoffs and recover more quickly.

This is what my company did. Based on my annual salary I had to take a 20% temporary pay deduction. Everyone in my company is taking anywhere from 10-20% temporary pay deduction. They did this to avoid company wide layoffs. Some people are also on furloughs one week per month or one week every other month. I think this was a smart move by my company.

 

[TUGBrian]

with as much money going out for all this, it will likely be recouped in the form of taxes down the road. everyone will pay regardless. (well, everyone who pays taxes will anyway)

 

[Shankilicious]

with as much money going out for all this, it will likely be recouped in the form of taxes down the road. everyone will pay regardless. (well, everyone who pays taxes will anyway)

I'm betting gas will jump straight to $3+ by mid summer. It's $1.69 in the STL area now. And that'll just be part of it. Well all get taxed very heavily if not have to completely pay back the stimulus checks they sent out.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[Brett]

I am wondering who would be willing to give up 20% of their income or social security and pension income to help others who have lost their jobs due to the SIP/SAH orders. I know many people are willing to stay at home to reduce deaths. But who would be fine if the government decides it needs to reduce social security and pensions to pay for the relief programs? Would working adults be willing to take a 20% a pay cut to help save jobs for other people? By taking a pay cut, maybe we could prevent mass layoffs and recover more quickly.

I don't believe the federal government will reduce social security payments and pensions to pay for "relief" programs.
But there is a good possibility personal (and maybe corporate) taxes will increase in the future

 

[AnnaS]

What I would love to do besides the usual donations, is sponsor a family during this crisis. Help a particular family in some way. Food or a small set amount per month.

 

[geekette]

The best thing I can do right now is donate to local food pantries. I am hoping when unemployment payments show up we'll see the lines decrease, but they won't be going away. I may end up with a roommate; I'd share quarters with someone down on their luck that would help me tend the grounds and veggies. That's what's coming next, people losing their homes or evicted from apartments they can't pay rent on and unable to catch up.

 

[geist1223]

Nope.

 

[Snazzylass]

What I would love to do besides the usual donations, is sponsor a family during this crisis. Help a particular family in some way. Food or a small set amount per month.

I'm directing my donations to the local food pantry which my company matches, and St. Vincent de Paul - both help folks in dire situations.

 

[WVBaker]

But there is a good possibility personal (and maybe corporate) taxes will increase in the future

That goes without saying regardless of this pandemic.

 

[JanT]

I wouldn't trust the government with anything that has to do with our finances - no matter which political party was in charge. I'll do my part in helping others but no way would I trust the government to funnel off 20% of our income in some supposed plan to help others. I never thought I would say I no longer trust our government but I no longer do.

 

[am1]

I've lost much more. People have not paid rent (legally allowed to not pay if affected by virus), apartments are sitting empty, stocks are way down and cancelled dividends for the rest of the year (good move). My heavy equipment can only work in farms as all construction is shut down. Hopefully I can make up this on the other side with getting some fire sales.

 

[WackyLucy]

I don't believe the federal government will reduce social security payments and pensions to pay for "relief" programs.
But there is a good possibility personal (and maybe corporate) taxes will increase in the future

I am not inclined to believe that the government ever could (lawfully) single out (i.e., discriminate against) just social security or pension recipients (of which I am neither one) to fund any program.

By the way, this same governments is currently sending out "stimulus" checks to Americans who have been deceased for several years.

Maybe a better and more fair way to raise revenue would be to rescind tax law changes of recent years that ultimately provide financial benefit only to corporations and to the very highest income individuals --- entities that plainly need "relief" the least.

 

[bogey21]

I'm not keen on giving anymore to the Government than required. On the other hand I have been using about $2,000 per month for the benefit of my kids and ex-wife for years now. Things like health insurance payments, car payments, health insurance on their dogs, contributions to 529s, etc. They know the rules. Don't ask me for anything. I monitor what is going on in their lives and contribute as I see fit. Just last week I told my Son who just got laid off that I will make his $2,000+ mortgage payment until he gets back to work. That means for the foreseeable future I will be chipping in over $4,000 per month for their benefit where I have no obligation to do anything...

I have been doing this for years. My rationale is that I could accumulate the money and leave it to them when I die or use it for their benefit while I am alive. I kid them saying "many of my friends kids root for their parents to die. You guys are rooting for me to live". I'm now 85 and it seems to be working...

George

 

[VacationForever]

No. Some percentage of between 12 to 40 percent of retirees rely solely on Social Security to live in retirement. Social security payment itself is small and not enough to live on and this group of people already suffer tremendously. Even for someone who has contributed to the maximum into Social Security for 35 years, we are still looking at around $2600 per month. There is nothing to be cut from social security payment. Heck, I cannot live on $2600 a month.

On the other hand, many of the pension systems are flawed and which are mainly driven by union negotiations, overly ambituous projection of investment growth, allowing employees to buy "credits" to obtain higher pension payment and using the highest of X monthly salary for calculation of payout. But if you are proposing peanut butter cut of pension then it is a no. I would agree that some sanity must be brought in to reduce high pension payments but not for those who only get say, less than 4K a month.

 

[bbodb1]

with as much money going out for all this, it will likely be recouped in the form of taxes down the road. everyone will pay regardless. (well, everyone who pays taxes will anyway)

Was that a political comment by @TUGBrian ??

That is likely as close he gets I suspect! His point is correct though in that these outgoing funds are going to have to be recouped in some way, form or fashion.
It won't be pretty.

But do NOT touch Social Security. Because doing so would create even more problems.

And now, I will back away from the rail!

 

[Panina]

Was that a political comment by @TUGBrian ??

That is likely as close he gets I suspect! His point is correct though in that these outgoing funds are going to have to be recouped in some way, form or fashion.
It won't be pretty.

But do NOT touch Social Security. Because doing so would create even more problems.

And now, I will back away from the rail!

Not really political, just reality it has to be paid back. It won’t just fall from the sky. Taxes are a way of revenue.

 

[Shankilicious]

I am not inclined to believe that the government ever could (lawfully) single out (i.e., discriminate against) just social security or pension recipients (of which I am neither one) to fund any program.

By the way, this same governments is currently sending out "stimulus" checks to Americans who have been deceased for several years.

Maybe a better and more fair way to raise revenue would be to rescind tax law changes of recent years that ultimately provide financial benefit only to corporations and to the very highest income individuals --- entities that plainly need "relief" the least.

How do you figure some stimulus checks are going to deceased person's? They're based on the 2018 filings.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[Luanne]

How do you figure some stimulus checks are going to deceased person's? They're based on the 2018 filings.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

Because it's been happening. There was a local person that happened to. They interviewed the father. They had received the check for their son who had passed away.

 

[bbodb1]

It is worth remembering it is NOT easy to accurately record and report deaths throughout all the various systems and levels of government.

 

[SmithOp]

I can think of several sections of the federal budget that could take a 25% cut without affecting mid to low income people, so no, I’m not inclined to take a personal cut.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro